1999-03-223912SENATE285101999-03-22The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills2851r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr6342851Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Senator Minchin:That these bills be now read a second time.12:31:002851Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Members of a society need the ability to communicate readily with each other to make it a true one. The better they are able to communicate, the better their society. The extent to which Telstra enables Australians to do this should be the main test of its worth. Returns to shareholders, although important, are a lesser consideration. Telstra is best able to give all Australians, no matter where they reside, the ability to communicate with each other and with people around the world when it is in public hands. Service alone becomes the criteria at that point, not service together with profit.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Profit surely?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I have nothing against profit, Senator Carr, as you know, but you and I would both agree that service is the best thing.12:32:002851Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens oppose this legislation. There could be no more telling damnation of this legislation than the transcript of Meet the Press , on which a number of journalists interviewed Senator Alston, the minister responsible, just this last weekend. Let me read from that transcript. Brian Toohey posed the following question to Senator Alston:Look, I'll move onto another point. The Auditor-General has issued a damning report on the way you sold the first third of Telstra, which effectively argues that you ended up selling it billions of dollars below the market price—in other words, taxpayers were short-changed by billions of dollars—and that why you did that was on the advice of three big broking firms. They obviously failed in terms of getting the maximum price available from the market, yet you have turned around as a government and said, okay, those same three broking firms can handle the next tranche of Telstra that is going up to the market. Why reward a failure like that?Senator Alston replied:Well, this is a classic example of 20-20 hindsight. I mean to say that because the market took off in the way that it did that the bull run seemed to have—and then there were interjections backwards and forwards. It is a classic case of complete blindness in recalling the past. The question was put: why reward brokerage firms?We saw that reward in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money spent on the sale of the first third of Telstra, with this next one-sixth of Telstra to be put to the market if this legislation goes through. The estimates vary but point to the brokerage firms getting up to $1 billion for the sale of the rest of the whole of Telstra. If we look back at the consultants listing for that first third of Telstra being sold, we see Amos Aked Swift Pty Ltd getting $80,000, Arthur Robinson and Hedderwicks getting $451,368, Coopers and Lybrand getting $18,600 and $155,000, CS First Boston getting $275,000, Noel Turnbull Pty Ltd getting $153,000, Sullivan and Cromwell getting $184,000, and so on.Mr Acting Deputy President, you will know well that there is an enormous amount of money to be made from the listing on the stock exchange of what has turned out to be the biggest company listing in Australian history—Telstra. Yet, the result has been appalling as far as the Australian taxpayers are concerned. What we now know is that Telstra was sold for billions of dollars less than its real market price. One has only to look at the way the shares have gone on the stock market to realise that. Who is responsible for this? The government is primarily responsible.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Too hard to pick.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It was too hard to pick, says the National Party representative opposite, but the reality is that this was picked so far below the market that an appalling loss to public revenue has occurred. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars and we are not talking about millions of dollars, Senator McGauran—we are talking about billions of dollars of public money.Senator McGauran says that it was too hard to pick. You would expect that, if they were acting in the public interest here, the government might have erred on the high side of the advice of the brokerage firms in the middle. But it came out billions of dollars too low. Yet we have Senator Alston trying to defend the reappointment of the same brokerage firms for the sale of the next tranche. That is studied ignorance. That is a studied determination by the government to repeat the mistake it made last time.The best the government could do—and I do not think it would stand up to analysis—is to say, `Well, we were given wrong advice on what the float price should have been.' Instead of that, we have got the government accepting, because they cannot do otherwise, that the price was way too low and that the owners of Telstra, the Australian public, lost millions of dollars through the sale at that low price. Sure, it lined the pockets of those people who rushed to buy shares and the wealthier sectors of the public who were able to make massive investments in buying the shares. But for every one of them there are hundreds who have lost out, because the billions of dollars forgone in revenue to the government will be raised either through taxes or through cutting services in the future. I believe that the government, and in particular the minister, are acting reprehensibly in doing no better than appointing the same firms who made the mistake last time to do it yet again.Moving on from that, the arguments that we ought not be selling this great national asset across to the private sector have been well put by the Greens and by people like Senator Lundy in the debate both on this occasion and when the first third of Telstra came up for sale before. One of the sweeteners that was used for that sale, you will remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, was the Natural Heritage Trust Fund.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Correct.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator McGauran acknowledges that. It is being used as a sweetener again this time. I believe that the way millions of dollars of that trust fund have been used is a clear deception of the Australian public. For example, some $40 million of this Telstra money which was supposed to go to the environment has been earmarked for agroforestry. As Senator Hill, the minister who purports to be for the environment, has told this house, that can include the clearing of native vegetation, that is, natural ecosystems, across this country to put in Pinus radiata or genetically manipulated trees, the aim of which is no different from any other cropping system in the country, which is to make money through maximum production but the elimination of natural ecosystems.When you have that sort of money, which was earmarked for the environment, going to an environmentally destructive pursuit on a broad scale like that, is it not a fraudulent exercise? Is this not a clear deception, a cheat, on the expectations of the Australian people that this money was going to go to the environment? You have heard me before, Mr Acting Deputy President, proclaim what a double standard it is that the Howard government can say it is in the business of spending more money on the environment than any previous government when in fact its record clearly shows that it is in the business of being more destructive of the environment than any previous government. The government utilises some of the funds from the sale of Telstra for bandaid solutions downstream in catchments while upstream in those very same catchments this government is removing all environmental inhibitions to the wholesale destruction of Australia's grand native forests and the wildlife that lives in them. The environmental doublespeak that is involved in this process is monumental.Another example is that we have some hundreds of millions of dollars all up from the Telstra fund touted as going to the protection of the Murray-Darling Basin and the extensive environmental interests that are involved there. But under close questioning we find that the minister for the environment has given his stamp of approval for at least $12 million of that green money to go to shoring up the Hume Reservoir; to concrete and cement and dam repair processes which have nothing to do with the environment. The use of this Telstra money has involved a very broadscale deception by the ministers involved, not least the minister for the environment.If we were able to get a thorough analysis of the use of the more than $1 billion from the sale of the first third of Telstra and what the outcome has been as far as the environment is concerned, I am sure that we would find that not only is it a deception in specific cases involving tens of millions of dollars, as I have said, but also the outcome from the spending of more than $1 billion of public money has been maybe the worst allocation of money for outcome in the history of the Federation, of the Commonwealth government. You cannot see that this country's environmental interests have advanced since the sale of Telstra, whichever measurement you use. The big environmental issues of the day are the protection of species; the saving of forests; the prevention of degradation of our waterways; the turnaround of the enormous rubbishing of our beaches, land and cities; the growing impact of the greenhouse effect, for which Australia has scored one of the worst reputations in the world; and the need to move across to energy renewables as against the burning of fossil fuels. The indices are not better; they are worse.When it comes to the environment, we have a government of bandaids which has used the Telstra sale to cover a litany of derelict actions by its Minister for the Environment and Heritage and by the other ministers whose portfolios are basically to enhance the extraction of resources at the expense of the long-term interests of this country.So I oppose this legislation. I oppose it on the basis, firstly, of its negative social impact in the long term in this country. I oppose it, secondly, because of the fraudulent cover that the government has used for its environmental recklessness and failure to act in the national interest by repeatedly referring to the fact that they claim to spend more money on the environment than any government in the past. We will see a lot more analysis of that as we go down the line, but it will not change the fact that either the minister for the environment or this Prime Minister have set their face against their responsibilities to act strongly and prudently on behalf of the national environment, both for people at present and for coming generations of Australians.This legislation should be opposed. I hope that when the time comes the independent senators who have the crucial say on this will stand against it. Finally, I want to talk a little more about that. We are seeing a debate at the moment about potential trade across issues between Senator Harradine and the government. There is increasing debate in the media in particular about the morals crusade that is ascribed to Senator Harradine and the threat to censorship in this country.I do not know what is said when Senator Harradine approaches the Prime Minister's office, but what I do know is that this has been an unusually frequent occurrence in recent months. He certainly has an access to the Prime Minister's office that most other members of the Senate could only wish for. This is not because there is a complement of feeling between the parties or because the Prime Minister has time to spare and wants somebody to sip tea with. This is because there is a suite of pieces of legislation which are pivotal, as the government sees it, to implementing its strategy for Australia, including the piece before this house at the moment, but very noteworthy is the GST legislation coming down the line.On the face of it, there is a clear trade of issues occurring here. The interests of Senator Harradine are in repressing what average Australians can see, read or hear about—including, most recently, repressing what they are able to access on the Internet—and also what youngsters are able to access in terms of education to deal with alleged problems such as promiscuity, drugs, and so on.Trading off of issues is not new to politics; it is part and parcel of it. But the public has the right to know what the trade is. If Senator Harradine goes to the Prime Minister's office, there is an agenda. The public has a right to know what is on that agenda, the public has a right to know what is discussed, what points of view were put, and what outcomes were arrived at.I say to Senator Harradine that it is in his own interests to be open and transparent in these matters. If there is no trading occurring, then the best way to settle the matter is to produce the minutes of those meetings—that is a minimum—for the public to see. These are not small issues; these are issues affecting every Australian. So every Australian in an open and transparent democracy has a right to know what is discussed when Senator Harradine and the Prime Minister meet and, indeed, how frequently they are meeting because, as I said, it seems that this is occurring if not weekly, then with unusual regularity at the moment.We know what the agenda is. We know what the time line is. We know that 1 July means that Senator Harradine is no longer in a position to be able to arbitrate on these matters. And if he is going to have his agenda fulfilled, then he has to make his move by 1 July. And there is enormous pressure on him at the moment about that. I say again that the trading of issues is not new, but there ought to be transparency in these negotiations between the government and Senator Harradine. It is not democratic, it is not public minded, it is not fair to the people of Australia, if there is not a reporting as these negotiations unfold of what the topics are and in general what the discussion outcome is in these meetings between Senator Harradine and the several ministers involved.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—He has done more for Tasmania than you will ever do.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Calvert interjects that Senator Harradine has done a lot for Tasmania, and I am not going to get into a debate about that.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—I didn't say that; I said he has done more for Tasmania than you will ever do.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is fine, Senator Calvert, but at the moment there is a lot of alarm in Australia that he is unravelling a lot of the good that you say he may have done. And there is a political debate here which should involve the public. Whether you are looking at the GST and the sale of Telstra or whether you are looking at censorship, every Australian has an interest in that. So we should have a report on these matters going to the Australian people. (Time expired)12:52:002854Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and associated legislation. On speaking to this legislation, it must be stressed that, if passed, this legislation will authorise immediately the sale of up to 49.9 per cent of Telstra. After a proposed six-month inquiry into service levels in regional Australia, the government would be able to sell off the rest of Telstra without further reference to the parliament.All Australians will ultimately lose out if this sale is allowed to proceed, but the big losers will inevitably be people in rural and regional areas. If Telstra is sold, the federal government will lose the ability to ensure that adequate levels of service are provided to people in regional Australia. This is a particularly worrying feature of the proposed legislation, since people in the country have already been experiencing declining standards in service delivery.According to Australian Communications Authority data, Telstra's service levels in the provision of service to regional, rural and remote Australia hit a record low in the 1997 December quarter. Quarterly reports on a number of performance indicators have shown little improvement since that time. The ACA's telecommunications performance report for 1997-98 also referred to an `apparent decline in service levels for the provision of telephone services and repair of faults, particularly in the country'. Evidently, services to country Australia have already been eroded since the partial sale of Telstra. Given this factor, it would be irresponsible of this government to proceed with selling the rest of Telstra when it is obviously unable to safeguard the provision of these vital services to rural and remote communities.The National Farmers Federation, the Consumers Telecommunications Network, the WA government, the City of Yarra, and the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union all gave evidence to the recent committee inquiry, indicating that levels of service delivery were declining, particularly in country Australia. These organisations strongly believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure a reasonable standard of service delivery to Australians in rural and remote areas. Mr Ian McLean, from the CEPU, stressed that this can only be achieved if the government retains the ability to influence the running of Telstra in accordance with the national interest. He maintains, `While it is in public ownership governments of any calibre or any colour will be making sure that the country constituency and all those other disadvantaged areas get a reasonable deal.'This government, however, seems to have no regard for the needs of Australians in rural and remote areas. People in regional areas have been losing many of their vital services since this government came to office, and communications is just another service to which they will now have limited access. It is often almost impossible to see a doctor in many country centres, with people waiting weeks for an appointment with their local GP. Resources are being taken from the smaller public hospitals in country areas, forcing people to drive to the nearest regional centre if there is an emergency. This is particularly unacceptable, given the very physical nature of life in the country, where farming accidents in particular pose a very real and immediate danger. It is vital for people in the bush to have access to a reliable telecommunications network.Centrelink closures and the abandoning of country branches by the major banks have also contributed to a feeling of isolation and alienation for people in country areas. For many, telecommunications provide an essential link with the outside world. For those in particularly remote areas, the telephone and the Internet are the only means of conducting their daily business. While such electronic services are no substitute for the personal touch that can be provided face to face, they are nonetheless the only option for some. If the sale of Telstra goes ahead, the rural lifeline will be seriously threatened, if not cut altogether.How are people in rural and remote communities supposed to cope in complete isolation? If repairs and maintenance cannot be carried out quickly because of declining resources, this issue could quite feasibly become one of life or death. Imagine what might happen if a farmer had no access to telecommunications in the instance of a serious accident. Imagine the implications of the same situation for remote Aboriginal communities.This government is putting people at risk by exposing our national telecommunications provider to the whims of market forces. Services to rural and remote areas are not cost efficient, and a privatised Telstra would seek to minimise expenditure in this area. Market forces will provide no incentive to carry out new infrastructure projects in rural and remote areas where there are not enough people to cover costs. If this sale goes ahead, we will invariably see country people lose more of these vital services, driving more of their children to the city as regional Australia becomes increasingly isolated and remote.This government has sought to downplay the bill's detrimental effect for country people by offering some token compensatory arrangements. According to the provisions of the bill, $671 million from the sale will be set aside to be allocated to various initiatives, principally for the benefit of residents in rural and regional areas. When we consider that the current value of the Commonwealth's remaining shares in Telstra is $55.4 billion, the inadequacy of the so-called social bonus becomes apparent.It is also interesting to note that the fees for the sale of the remaining shares are expected to amount to between 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent of sale proceeds; hence the government will pay bankers and lawyers between $800 million and $1.1 billion for the sale. These bankers and lawyers will therefore receive around $200 million more than the amount allocated to initiatives aimed at compensating rural Australians. All they will have done is facilitate the sale, while country people suffer at their expense. It is easy to see that country Australia is not high on the agenda of this government.While people in rural, regional and remote areas will clearly be the big losers if the full sale of Telstra goes ahead, the Australian community in general has also been sold out in a big way by this opportunistic government. At the moment, the majority of Telstra is owned by the Australian community. The people of Australia directly benefit from the revenue generated by Telstra each year. Public ownership means that this money can be used to help fund government expenditure on infrastructure and services for the community.As the level of government ownership in Telstra declines, so does the dividend to government at the end of each financial year. As Telstra profits increase year after year, the community will be diddled out of the benefits they should have received as a result. In this sense, the mums and dads of Australia are already shareholders in Telstra. This means that any attempt to further privatise Telstra is not an opportunity for these people to become shareholders but can be more realistically seen as the unauthorised sale of their assets.Australian families will no longer benefit from the profits of their company. Government services and infrastructure projects will no longer be subsidised by Telstra profits. This is not an opportunity for Australians to become shareholders; it is a hostile corporate takeover initiated by this government under the guise of opportunity. Thirty-five per cent of the profits of a fully privatised Telstra will go offshore. Under public ownership, these profits would have been ploughed back into the Australian economy, contributing to economic growth and job creation right here at home. This government has had the incredible audacity to try to sell back to the Australian community something that is already theirs, forcing them to compete against market forces for a share in their own profits.Telecommunications research and development will also fall by the wayside as a result of the Telstra sale. The financial benefits from research and development do not show up on the balance sheet in the short term, so will not be a priority for a company driven by market forces and the need to provide short-term profits for shareholders. However, research and development is the only way to improve and extend services over the long term.Australia is a country characterised by vast distances and it is a constant challenge to provide services that link the nation in an efficient fashion. Research and development into new technologies has so far enabled the rapid development of electronic service delivery mechanisms which help Australians communicate and do business over vast distances. The sale of Telstra will consequently impede the development of new technologies that may be beneficial to the Australian communications system. It is in the public interest to ensure that our telecommunications system is constantly developed to keep pace with the latest technology developments. The only way to make sure that research and development continues is to maintain public ownership so that the government can direct Telstra to address the communication needs of the community into the new millennium.Privatisation will expose Telstra to market forces, creating a profit orientation that will inevitably lead to further staff cuts. The emphasis on service provision will be replaced by an emphasis on reducing staff costs. This will invariably cost jobs and undermine the working conditions of remaining staff who will be under increased pressure to perform tasks quickly rather than thoroughly. Telstra has already shed nearly 25 per cent of its total work force in less than two years, with further job cuts scheduled for both the current and subsequent financial years. This government has made a commitment to the Australian people to fight unemployment. Now it wants to allow Telstra to cut costs by sacking Australian workers while vital profits go offshore to benefit economic growth in other countries. This is not just contradictory; it is bad financial management. The coalition merely wants to make a quick buck without considering the long-term consequences for economic growth and unemployment rates. During the last sitting week, they tried to force young people to accept huge pay cuts because they claimed it was a necessary sacrifice in addressing the problem of long-term unemployment. Today they want to secure the sacking of more Australian workers. If they expect the community to make sacrifices to reduce unemployment, they must learn to stop making it worse themselves.This government has obviously only been paying lip-service to the concept of mutual obligation, otherwise it would surely be obliged to protect the public interest in considering the sale of Telstra. Further staff cuts in Telstra are certainly not in the public interest. The financial imperative to cut costs stemming from the partial privatisation of Telstra has already led to a decline in essential services.Plans to centralise the 000 emergency call service caused great concern in January this year when an interstate operator despatched an ambulance to the wrong location. The need for regionally based operators became very apparent when the ambulance arrived at a town with the same name in a different state. While state emergency 000 call centres are more expensive to maintain than one centralised location, the extra staff can actually make the difference between life and death. This frightening incident is a graphic illustration of the reason why Telstra needs to remain under governmental control if the public interest is to be protected.Australians are entitled to be able to rely on these vital services. The government has sought to appease fears that services will suffer by proposing an inquiry to review service levels at Telstra. However, such an inquiry will be superficial, inadequate and pointless if it is to be conducted in the manner outlined by the government. Many witnesses to the recent committee inquiry indicated that the six months suggested would be an inadequate time frame for assessing service levels. CEPU's submission articulated these concerns, pointing out:The period of six months is short in the context of a decision whose impacts will be felt for generations.The proposed inquiry to review service levels would be conducted in secret, without any public submissions. Furthermore, there would be no compulsion for the minister to follow the recommendation of the inquiry with regard to the sale. These factors would ensure that the process could not be adequately consultative, transparent or comprehensive. If the results of any inquiry were to be censored in such a way, there would be no point in having one at all. Once again, this government has sought to implement its legislative regime via stealth and deception.Issues of privacy also demand that Telstra should not be sold off to private business interests. Evidence provided to the committee inquiry by the Australian Privacy Charter Council indicates that the sale of Telstra could pose a serious threat to the privacy rights of its Australian customers. Their submission concludes:It is not yet safe to relinquish government control over Telstra through its majority shareholding.Given the inadequacy of the current regulatory framework, and the history of Telstra's unwillingness to comply with the spirit of privacy principles, the Committee should recommend that the Sale Bill not proceed.Clearly, there is a multitude of reasons why the Australian public needs to be protected from the proposed sell off of the remainder of Telstra.The sale of Telstra is not in the best interests of the community. People in rural, remote and regional areas will not be adequately compensated for the loss of essential services that will inevitably result from the sale. The government's so-called `social bonus' is little more than an insult to the intelligence of country people, who are well aware that their vital telecommunications services are already under threat.It is of the utmost importance that the Australian government, and therefore Australian people, retain control of Telstra in order to safeguard the public interest and ensure the adequate provision of such services as state 000 emergency centres. This government would not recognise the public interest if it jumped out and bit them. They must not be allowed to sell off Telstra because it simply is not theirs to sell.13:10:002858Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to oppose the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . As I have said previously in this chamber in other debates, the central issue that emerges in discussing the question of the privatisation of Telstra is its effect on rural and regional Australia. Yet once again we see the group in the corner here prepared to put their name to a bill which will have a major impact on the people they purport to represent—the people of the bush, the people of rural and regional Australia. They are prepared to put their hands up to support the Liberal Party, their partners in coalition, on an issue that will have a major impact on the people they represent.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Beneficial impact.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—That is a question of judgment, and that judgment will be made by the Australian people—particularly, Senator Abetz, the people of the state you represent, who will be major disbeneficiaries of the privatisation of this corporation. The reality is that since the partprivatisation we have already witnessed the quality and the level of service in rural and regional Australia dropping off significantly. Every time we visit rural and regional Australia on various Senate committees there are major complaints by people in the bush as to what has happened to their communications services, particularly under this government.The reality is that this bill is not about good public policy. It is not about doing something for our communications environment that will benefit all Australians. It is an ideologically driven agenda in the same way most of the legislation that this government has brought before this chamber has been driven by ideology, not by a commitment to good public policy. We have seen it in unfair dismissals, we have seen it in youth wages, we have seen it on the waterfront—we have seen it in a whole range of areas. In fact, one would have to say that this has been the most ideological government we have witnessed in this parliament for the past 50-odd years.Much of this agenda is related to what has happened, and is happening, in New South Wales with electricity. This proposal to privatise our major communications carrier will be rejected overwhelmingly by the Australian people. They do not want it. They have not asked for it. What they want is good telecommunications services.The reality is that Telstra is a natural monopoly. It still represents about 90 per cent of the communications marketplace. There are obviously more benefits to the Australian community in keeping Telstra in public hands than there are in allowing it to fall into private hands. We currently all share in the dividend that Telstra provides to the Commonwealth budget; as Australians we all reap the benefit of that contribution. The reality is that that will be lost to the Commonwealth. But, more importantly, if Telstra is fully privatised, our capacity as a nation to determine the direction of telecommunications development will be severely restricted.As a public company, Telstra has, one, had a responsibility to the Australian community to provide telephone services to all Australians; and, two, it has had a commitment to Australian jobs—both direct employment and indirect employment—through its support and development of secondary industries in Australia. Our electronics industry has been built around servicing the needs of Telstra. Already we have seen a drop off in the local content that has been going from the telecommunications industry to the electronics industry since total deregulation occurred on 1 July 1996.We have seen our electronics industry grow to an industry that is worth about $1 billion a year, from an industry that was worth about $50 million some 10 years ago. But that only represents a tenth of the expenditure that is occurring in electronics associated with telecommunications. There are a lot more opportunities that can be harvested for Australian companies and Australian businesses by them supplying to a fully publicly owned telecommunications operator.Efficient telecommunications in all its facets, particularly with the new technologies that are around, are an integral component of business opportunity and business costs. There is no guarantee of the significant policy of purchasing locally in order to support Australian industry and the focus on small and medium sized businesses continuing if Telstra is fully privatised. Not only do the employees of Telstra lose, but many of those small and medium enterprises that have been built up around Telstra will also lose in terms of their providing significant employment opportunities.The reality is that, as a privatised company, Telstra will place the interests of its shareholders first. A clear example of this is what was reported on 6 November 1998, when Telstra shareholders claimed directors were being pressured to back the federal government's position on the cost of subsidising phone services to the bush. One shareholder, spokesman Mr Stan Mather, said it was up to the government, not to shareholders, to see services provided to regional and rural Australia. The reality is that if you have a fully privatised communications company, that universal service obligation will be very much pushed into the background as the directors focus on delivering greater profits to the shareholders of the company.The question also needs to be raised in relation to the future of industrial development in Australia and the role that Telstra will play in that development. As I say, communications is integral to the development of our industries. It will become more and more critical as the factor which will determine the success or failure of many industries into the future. It will be the nature of their communications systems, how they use communications and how they are utilised as a tool to access markets.In this country it is important to ensure that the opportunity that prevails to industries in the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane and their related environs also prevails to industries in regional and rural Australia, that they are provided with the same opportunities to be able to exercise those international markets and to be able to be successful and to operate effectively in them. They will not be unless we are able to provide communications infrastructure to regional and rural Australia that is at least the equivalent of what is provided to the CBD of Sydney, Melbourne or elsewhere. That is not provided at the moment. It is a major failure of our telecommunications system.Providing some compensatory mechanisms, as have been provided for in this bill, will do nothing to equalise the opportunity that is available to people in the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne with that of people in the bush. That is a factor that is well known. It is certainly acutely understood by people in the bush, if not by people in the capital cities. Unless we find a way of providing and generating industrial growth and the growth of industries in regional and rural Australia, that part of our community is going to continue to wither on the vine.We have to look at what has occurred with jobs and Telstra since part-privatisation. Telstra has cut its employment significantly. The job losses have hit hardest in rural Australia. There has been a loss of desperately needed income in those towns, and there has been a severe reduction of service by Telstra in rural areas. Look at where Telstra is heading, in terms of the statement by its chairman after its annual meeting in November that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 November 1998, which was the first annual meeting of the company since the one-third sell-off. He said that profit growth was on target, but there was need for further pruning. He said there were no specific figures for the year to date, but analysts expected a net profit of around $3.5 billion in the year to 30 June, versus $3 billion in 1997-98—a profit rise from cost savings and job cuts.Telstra cut $1.3 billion from operating costs last year and has sliced about 20,000 jobs in the past two years, well on track in its program to slice 27,500 jobs over five years—a continuing cutting of jobs and jobs opportunities by Telstra to drive profits further and further up the scale. Yet we now see the salaries of Telstra executives being competitive in terms of the general marketplace for executives in other parts of the private sector.It makes economic sense to keep a monopoly in government hands. No-one would suggest that Telstra is not a monopoly in terms of our current telecommunications environment. As late as this morning, in an article in the Financial Review, it was stated that a number of the major telcos who are now operating in this country:. . . have warned that further privatisation would reduce Canberra's capacity to curb Telstra's `anti-competitive' behaviour.They said:. . . the safeguards and regulatory provisions in the legislation are not sufficient to provide any confidence that Telstra's future conduct will change.. . . . . . . . .Present government ownership of Telstra provides some brake (albeit minor) on the company's excessive and anti-competitive behaviour.And this is from its rivals in the marketplace. One would say you would have to take that with a pinch of salt. They are probably getting the rough end of the pineapple in the competitive environment. The reality is that we introduced a duopoly in 1992 in order to create a more competitive regime. This government introduced total deregulation on 1 July 1996 in order to create a more competitive regime, on the basis that we would all benefit from that competition. And here you have those that were enticed in as competitors to provide that competition now whingeing in the daily press that it has not worked, they have not put a dent in the big T and the big T continues to operate basically as it had prior to any of the deregulation occurring.The reality is that the position that Telstra now occupies in the marketplace, with its dominance in the marketplace, means that it is able to do that and it will only provide and has only provided the services in a more distributive form right across Australia because of government insistence that those services be provided, not because there is any goodwill or big-heartedness among the directors of the company. That certainly will not be the case if Telstra is totally privatised.There are a whole range of areas that one could look at and one could raise in the way in which Telstra is functioning. I recently had a report from a constituent in inner Sydney where one would expect services to be at their peak. They attempted to have a telephone connected to a new property. It has taken almost five weeks to have that telephone connected. The constituent was informed that the fault lay with the contractors employed to complete the work rather than Telstra itself. This is despite the fact that it took three weeks for those who lay the cables to inform the technicians and customer service operators that the building in question was not even connected to the exchange. All of this was after the constituent had actually waited in on a Saturday or a weekend for the Telstra representative to show up to do the necessary work.This issue was highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 March in respect of compensation under the customer service guarantee for delaying telephone connection. It reported that if a phone line is not repaired or installed within the agreed time frame of three to five days for the Sydney metropolitan area, the customer is entitled to a daily rebate of the monthly rental fee, which is $11.65 for residential, $20 for a business for the first five days and then $40 for each working day thereafter. You can imagine what the circumstances must be like in regional and rural Australia. Some people probably get themselves rich just by planning to have a phone connected out in some of those remote areas.In a previous discussion in this chamber about telecommunications, I raised the prospect of a range of options that were available to be considered in looking at the structure of our telecommunications industry, a way in which that industry could be reconstructed in order to ensure that all Australians, whether they live in the Sydney CBD, in Bendigo or in Tasmania, would have equal benefit of an efficient and effective communications system. There is a range of ways in which that can be done. I raised three options for looking at the nature of the business units within Telstra, looking at separating services from infrastructure, which other people have raised, and also looking at setting up regional structures within Telstra in order to make it much more responsive to the constituency that it is trying to represent. None of that can be done unless it is done within the context of full public ownership of the major institution.It certainly will not be capable of being done under private control or private ownership. There is an argument for looking at the way in which some of the small telcos function. In Canada and the United States there are a number of very good examples of small telcos with fewer than 500,000 subscribers providing effective communications systems in remote and regional areas, as well as using that as a base to develop and drive the creation of industries out of those services and to provide opportunities to grow beyond being just a communications subscriber. One of those telcos that is worth looking at is the telecommunications carrier New Brunswick in Canada.In examining this issue, the ALP has a number of recommendations. One, the government should not proceed further with the bill to privatise Telstra. Two, there should be an urgent, comprehensive public review of the competitive regime and further amendments made to that regime where appropriate. That would seem to be more than just abiding by the article on the front page of today's Financial Review. Three, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 should be amended to ensure, in the event of a delay in the provision of service due to a network fault, that the carrier responsible for the fault, not the carriage service provider, be required to compensate affected consumers. Four, the government should pursue further the notion of competitive tendering of the universal service obligation on a regional basis.There is no valid reason whatsoever that has been given in this parliament or given to the Australian public, either economic or social, to privatise Telstra any further, just as there was no social or economic reason to privatise any part of it in the first place.13:30:002861Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise in this debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and associated bills to express the view that privatising Telstra is about the silliest thing this government could possibly do at this point in time. It is interesting to see how far this debate has extended over the last couple of years, and it is interesting to look at the government's arguments along the way. They talk about competition and they talk about improvement of services arising from competition, and yet the evidence we have seen to date is clearly—particularly in rural and regional Australia—that services have been declining.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What about prices?7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—So where is the benefit to Australians? `Ah,' says the government, `it depends what measure.' I will take Senator McGauran's interjection and look at pricing. Why is it a fact that access to the Internet—which will be, if it is not already, the backbone of communications in this country and around the world—is far more expensive in rural and regional Australia than anywhere else? I will tell you why, Senator McGauran: it is because you cannot turn a profit in rural and regional Australia in telecommunications. Why not? Because it is very, very expensive to roll out a decent quality service right around a country that is so geographically vast.We need to be a little clever about how we manage telecommunications in this country. It is not enough to apply a simple dry economic theory to telecommunications in this country and expect voters to believe it. You cannot do that, and I believe that the proof of that is in the experience of rural and regional Australians over the last three years where services have declined.The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill provides for the sale of 100 per cent of Telstra in two stages, with a provision for the Commonwealth to sell the remainder of the Commonwealth's equity in Telstra without further reference to the parliament. The opposition remains strongly opposed to this, and the ability contained within this bill to bypass the authority of this parliament by instituting a sham inquiry as the trigger for the disposal of all the government's controlling equity in Telstra is clearly unacceptable. It is unacceptable for this reason: we have seen how Telstra have been able to manage and control their level of services. Why will it be any different in the context of an inquiry in which they will present their evidence to the government in the way that they see fit to try to prepare and mastermind their future political strategies for the sale?I would like to raise a very important question at this point in the debate. Who benefits if Telstra is privatised? I believe the answer is quite simple. If you want to know who benefits from privatisation you should look to those who advocate it. The most vehement advocates of the privatisation of Telstra at this point in time—putting aside the government—are the board of Telstra and the executives of Telstra. I hate to think what would happen if you applied a cost to the amount of resources that Telstra, using taxpayers' money no doubt, have devoted to perpetuating the privatisation campaign.Let us look at the cost cutting that has occurred over the last couple of years, and I take these figures from an article in the Australian on 1 March. Between 1994-95 and 1997-98, the number of full-time equivalent employees in Telstra dropped by 20,000. At the same time, labour expenses dropped $160,000. So you have this relatively minuscule $160,000 drop in the payment of wages in Telstra and yet 20,000 jobs disappeared. Let's do a few sums. What are 20,000 jobs worth with respect to Telstra? I suspect they are worth more than $160,000. Indeed, I would ask: who got the wage rise? The point was made by my colleague Senator George Campbell that the executive and senior management of Telstra are the ones who have benefited directly through wages and salary. We have a specific wage transfer which benefited those supporting the whole privatisation agenda through the last couple of years. It has meant that 20,000 jobs have gone and the resultant saving to the company in terms of wages is a mere $160,000. Congratulations to all the Telstra executives, who can, I hope, still sleep at night knowing that 20,000 families are worse off as a result of this process! No doubt those executive have found it possible to live in far greater comfort than previously.I would like to make a couple of other significant points—going back to the point about rural and regional Australia—about where the debate is at this point in time. Three years ago it was possible to stand in this place and talk about the privatisation of Telstra as just one element of the IT&T sector—one lone competitor over here competing in a very broad industry that was developing at a rapid rate. There were lots of mergers and privatisations going on around the globe. In three short years, the whole global debate about telecommunications and communications has been absolutely transformed. And yet we see this government still arguing for the privatisation of Telstra, which it categorised in its narrow definition as a single competitor in an IT&T sector over here. I put this to the government: when we talk about information technology and telecommunications, we are not talking about an isolated services sector that services the rest of business, consumers, residents and so on. We are talking about the absolute backbone of communications—both globally and here in Australia. We are talking about Telstra and telecommunications carriers as being the enabler of communications.When you talk about conducting business, growth and economic strategies and regional economic growth strategies, it is this communications backbone that is the enabling factor for that growth to occur, and that is what is missing from this debate. The minute you factor the central place of information technologies and telecommunications into today's society—1999, not 1996—it is a different picture.We hear rhetoric all the time from Minister Alston about the value and importance of the IT sector and what it offers to society, which are sentiments with which I concur. Where I have a problem with Senator Alston is that in the same breath he expects the Australian public to believe that a positive element of this government's rhetorical push for supporting the IT&T sector is the privatisation of Telstra. It is not. The privatisation of Telstra does not sit comfortably with the notion that Australia needs to build a strong economy and be a strong and powerful contributor to a global economy that allows our residents, businesses, community organisations and indeed governments to prepare themselves for the challenges of the information age that we are currently in. The inequities that exist are a critical reason why the government should not privatise Telstra. How are we going to build a strong Australia in this information age unless the government of the day accepts the absolute prerequisite that it needs to build that backbone and ensure that everybody can participate in it?The government are running out of policy tools with which to achieve this. They are running out of the policy tools very quickly; and the more they relinquish control of Telstra, the more they are denying themselves and any future government the ability to use policy tools to enable Australians to participate in the information age. As a result of this, we can expect social outcomes, as a result of the sale of Telstra, that will ensure that we live in a society of information haves and have-nots.This is rhetoric that is very familiar to the government because they use it all the time. We find ourselves being confronted as a parliament and as a country with pipsqueak ideas about compensation for the loss of this most critical policy tool of social equity in the new millennium. We find pipsqueak ideas like the RTIF—a worthy project certainly but surely a project worthy of Telstra's own investment. Surely it is an exercise where the dividend—the profit from this national carrier—could be invested directly. Why go through some scam of a process of reallocating grant moneys? Why take up the resources of all of those regional economic forums with all of those people out there preparing grant applications, brawling with each other over ideas? The mechanism is in place to wire this country up for the 21st century, and it lies within Telstra. Because the board of Telstra have chosen not to embark on this path but have chosen instead to focus all of their energy on privatisation—and it is not an Australian strategy but a global strategy—the rest of Australia suffers. The government of the day will eventually go down in history as the one that locked Australia out of the global telecommunications and IT revolution.Where is the focus of Telstra's global strategy? What is Telstra these days? In my view, it is not an Australian company anymore on the path it embarked upon under the leadership of its former Chief Executive, Mr Frank Blount. Under its current Chief Executive, Ziggy Zwitowski, it will be very interesting to see what Telstra becomes. I put it to the government that an Australian focus is a worthy focus, and yet we see Telstra's strategy being a global one. You might say this is a good thing. We live in a global economy and I acknowledge that Australia needs to be part of what is happening out there, but surely there is an argument for a bit of balance—two bob each way on Telstra—given taxpayers still own two-thirds of it and, hopefully, after this debate in this place Australians will still own two-thirds of it. Where is their future direction? At the moment we see a range of global alliances forming with Telstra. With respect to data services and global alliancing, Telstra have a specific agenda to form global alliances. I quote from page 12 of the annual review/annual report 1998, Welcome to the first Annual Review of your company . . . :A component of Telstra's strategy is to provide the seamless delivery of products and services to MNCs. Telstra is pursuing a number of options to achieve this goal. Firstly, Telstra has established sales and services offices across Asia, the United States and Europe to offer a single source of telecommunications services to its multinational customers.That is fantastic in terms of a global strategy and cooperation and direction and all the rest of it, but how come Telstra could manage to do that yet they cannot manage to provide a cheap, affordable and quality service to people living in Cooma? How come Telstra cannot provide a basic emergency service number that is not fraught with difficulties because of continuing cost cutting and pressure on the home front?Let us have a look at why. A very interesting interview was published in the Bulletin magazine on 2 March 1999, entitled `New Vistas'. There are a couple of quotes and reported comments about Telstra's domestic target. Page 43 says:Domestically, Telstra's "target" content range will be covered either by itself . . . or through alliances. "We realise we can't do the content all ourselves," he says—that is, Mr Blount—pointing to current talks with ninemsn (about Web-TV), Microsoft, IBM-GSA and, separately, IBM. "All of that's about content and near content," he says.What is the relevance of this point? The relevant point here is that Telstra has walked away from what it was as a carrier. Telstra's current strategy is to move down the information services path. Isn't it interesting to ask what Telstra is today and where it is going? If it is no longer focused on its carrier and provider services, is it any wonder that we find ourselves locked in a USO—universal service obligation—debate about who has to provide these services that do not turn a quid in the regional areas of Australia? Isn't it surprising that some of the significant points contained within the article I mentioned are not about carrier services, but about content, alliances and where Telstra is going?Telstra has made it very clear, through a series of interviews with Frank Blount on the eve of his departure and several statements since, that it is determined to become an information services company and move beyond just the distribution of voice and data. Telstra hopes to become even further vertically integrated in areas of digital content production, Internet service provision, data management, network services and the data mode of operation initiative announced recently which will, apparently, cost $1 billion and is designed to facilitate the growth of all those areas.In return, Telstra is fighting tooth and nail in the context of the ACCC to even provide just a little give when it comes to a more competitive edge, particularly in rural and regional Australia. In terms of this contrast, the solution lies in having a degree of government control and involvement. Within the context of this current legislative debate it is true that, whilst one-third has already gone, the best outcome for all Australians would be the retention of the remaining two-thirds in public ownership. The worst outcome would be to allow this government to proceed down a path that will disenfranchise not just the current generation of Australians from their involvement in the information age but indeed all future generations.I do not think this government realises what a critical point in the development of the information age Australia is currently at. Many speakers in this debate have already outlined the importance of research and development and of investing in doing something in a new and innovative way and yet Telstra's path over the last few years has clearly been one of withdrawing those investments, cost cutting and using alliances with other partners in the areas of content and information services to focus its investment.Telstra has been absolutely critical in placing Australia at the forefront of so many information technologies. And now through its alliancing process it is hand over fist giving away to international companies the opportunities and abilities to develop this intellectual property and technology, and therefore denying Australia the right and the opportunity to progress as a country and grow both economically and with respect to our intellectual property. This outcome would be the worst outcome for Australia. I believe absolutely that the only way for all Australians to benefit in the information age is to oppose in the most vehement way the government's agenda of creating a society of information haves and have-nots. Telstra's current path and current agenda are parts of that strategy.13:50:002864Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Senate has deliberated on and debated the issue of the full privatisation of Telstra now at some length. The Labor Party has held a very consistent view of the issue. We remain staunchly opposed to the sale of Telstra in full or by stages. To be fair there are others in this chamber who have been consistent in their approach and their opposition to the full privatisation of Telstra. Mind you, plenty of other senators and political parties have not.Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would probably know, this package of legislation—the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and related bills—is one big con job. It is a con on the National Party of Australia and on the Australian people. After refusing to accept the Senate's rejection of the full privatisation of Telstra, the government has now devised a new staged approach to dupe the Australian public into believing that the full privatisation will occur in a staged fashion. The impression has been created that such staging would be with parliamentary approval. The impression was also created that full privatisation was not inevitable, but would occur only if an inquiry concluded that Telstra was meeting adequate service levels. This is the real trick, of course—a sham inquiry being the trigger for full privatisation.After the first sale, of 16 per cent, the government proposes a so-called independent inquiry to determine whether adequate service levels are being met by Telstra and that will trigger, of course, the full and final sale of the remaining 51 per cent. Let me quote from the government's own press release announcing this con. It states:* the Government will seek to sell the remainder of Telstra in stages—the first sale will be of 16 per cent, which will leave 51 per cent . . . in Government hands.* no further sale beyond 49 per cent will be possible until:* the government has established an independent inquiry which will assess Telstra's service levels to customers in each of metropolitan, rural and remote areas against the prescribed standards. The new consumer protection legislation will specify the performance criteria which the inquiry will use in testing whether Telstra's performance on maintaining service levels has been adequate. Those criteria will build on those which underpin the current arrangements and will be developed in consultation with all interested sections of the community. * unless and until the independent inquiry certifies that service levels are adequate, there will be no further sell down beyond 49 per cent.Those words were contained in a press release issued by Senator Alston and Mr Fahey on 22 July 1998. It implies that the full and final privatisation of Telstra is not a fait accompli but something that the public and the parliament may have a further opportunity to debate.Nothing could be further from the truth. As its name states, this legislation provides for the full private ownership of Telstra. Once this legislation is passed, there is no going back. Telstra will be sold—all of it, the lot, 100 per cent. Do not think for a moment that this so-called independent inquiry will be any kind of safeguard against full privatisation if Telstra service levels do not match up.We do not believe it will be an independent inquiry. Why should we? It is the sham inquiry designed to con the National Party and con the Australian public. It was designed to give the National Party an out during the 1998 federal election campaign so that they could say, `Oh well, we are only going to sell the next 16 per cent to take it to 49 per cent, and then an independent inquiry will determine whether we can sell the rest, and then only if Telstra is maintaining service levels.' What service levels? Where are the criteria for service and performance levels set out in this legislation? They are simply not detailed here.The government's own announcement states that the new consumer protection legislation will specify the performance criteria the committee will use in determining the adequacy of service levels. The mechanism for determining performance criteria is included in the legislation but, of course, not the detail. So we really do not know what criteria the inquiry will be measuring Telstra against. Given that the outcome of the inquiry is the automatic trigger for the sale of the remaining 51 per cent, without further reference to parliament, those criteria are critical. This is, of course, a sham. This really is a whitewash. It is just another con on the poor old National Party. The National Party has been fooled with the social bonus. The government tried to hold the Senate hostage to the sale of one-third of Telstra by linking that to environment funding, the Natural Heritage Trust. That worked, so the government is trying the same old tactic again, this time by linking the full privatisation to the reform of the regulatory environment for telecommunications.We believe that legislation to enact change in the regulatory regime should be considered in advance of and, most importantly, independently of any proposal to sell more of Telstra. Instead of flogging the rest of Telstra, the government should be working to ensure that Telstra continues to invest in new communications technology and continues to invest in the necessary innovations and technical infrastructure for the new millennium, which my colleague Senator Lundy was speaking so persuasively and eloquently about just a moment ago.What about the social bonus bribe? At $671 million, it is a mere fraction of the current value of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, which has been estimated at being upwards of $55 billion. Of the $55 billion, the government expects to pay between 1.5 per cent and two per cent for the legal and financial fees relating to the sale. On this basis, the social bonus being offered to bankers and lawyers is between $800 million and $1 billion, far in excess of what the government is actually offering the rest of the Australian community. I think that does put this into real perspective.I cannot believe that the poor old National Party has fallen for this yet again—$1.1 billion for stockbrokers, lawyers and bankers but only $671 million for the bush. That is what the National Party has fallen for in relation to this particular scam. Let us not forget what happened with the last sell-off of Telstra, the sale of the first third of Telstra, and the debacle over the project management fees paid to the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing—all Senator Alston's own work, of course—and the debacle of the project management fees paid to global coordinators.Debate interrupted. Questions Without Notice286628662866Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. How does the minister explain the comments by a leading supporter of the government's tax package, Professor Geoff Carmody, that `everyone who says the compensation package won't last is dead right', and that the compensation package for pensioners will be `eroded to zero'? Why is the government misleading pensioners by telling them that their compensation will last when it knows that if wages continue to grow it will only be a matter of time before pensioners are back to where they were before the GST—that is, getting 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings? Doesn't this confirm the public's worst fears—that the GST compensation package is inadequate and will erode over time, possibly in only a few years, according to Mr Carmody?2866Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I guess the public's worst fear would be to have the Labor Party back in office, Senator Cook, particularly as you have blown the whistle on the Labor Party. If my memory serves me correctly, in your second most famous quote you indicated that the Labor Party is a high taxing party. That is the Labor Party's position and that is not our position.The government wants to ensure everyone receives their fair share of the benefits of tax reform. The government's package therefore includes an up-front rise of four per cent in income support payments from 1 July 2000, including a guaranteed 1.5 per cent real increase. On 1 July 2000, as a result of the government's tax reform package, pensions will be increased by a further four per cent over the floor provided by the 25 per cent MTAWE commitment. This means that single age pensions will be around $15.50 higher than they otherwise would have been under the 25 per cent MTAWE floor. Moreover, the commitment to provide the four per cent increase up-front and guarantee a 1½ per cent real increase to pensions, coupled with a 25 per cent MTAWE commitment, means that pensioners will be unambiguously better off under the tax reform arrangements.When we went to the election we made a commitment to provide a real increase in pensions: as I said, the 1.5 per cent real rise in pensions, which we stated in our policy. The Labor Party went to the election and promised absolutely nothing to pensioners, and that is one of the reasons the Labor Party are over that side of the chamber and why we are over this side. We have put together a compensation package which is fair to pensioners and which is fair to taxpayers. What we would like is the chance to make sure that we can deliver on our election promises. We want to make sure that we deliver on the promises that we went to the Australian people with and the promises on which we were elected to government.2867Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it not true that Mr Carmody helped model Fightback? Does the minister acknowledge that Mr Carmody is correct in pointing out that, given that male total average weekly earnings grow faster than the CPI, if this continues to be the case then the benefits of the government's proposed compensation will be eroded to zero relative to the pre-existing, legislated pension adequacy benchmark? Or are you saying that Mr Carmody is wrong?2867Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You provide a detailed answer to Senator Cook, you try to take him through the issues and you try to point out to him that we went to an election in which we promised an up-front rise in pensions. We put those issues forward and they were widely debated in the public arena.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No, they weren't.WW4Senator KEMP—They weren't widely debated in the public arena? Now I have heard everything. This is a very fair package for people on welfare benefits, for pensioners and for taxpayers. We believe that the Senate should really make the government keep its promises. That is what we expect the Senate to do. We want the Senate to make us keep our promises so that we can deliver to the Australian people precisely what we said we would in the election.28672867Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Australian economy under the Howard government has achieved strong growth in the face of the Asian economic crisis. Minister, will you outline the measures taken by this government to bring about this outstanding performance?2867Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Certainly the Australian economy continues to perform strongly under the Howard government. It does so because of the fair but hard decisions that this government had to take after the debacle we inherited from Labor. The current Australian economy has even been described as the `miracle economy' by such as Professor Krugman of MIT in the United States. Just reflect on it a moment: we have 4.7 per cent growth, home loan interest rates are at their lowest point in 30 years, we continue to enjoy record low rates of inflation, unemployment now stands at 7.4 per cent, which is the lowest rate since September 1990, and consumer and business confidence has returned to the levels recorded prior to the Asian economic crisis.As I said, this has not come about by accident, it is not a miracle—it has come about through the application of sound economic policy. Madam President, remember that this government inherited a $10 billion black hole, a $10 billion deficit, that had to be remedied, and it did so within the first three years of government. Not only did we take the hard decisions on expenditure but we also tackled the nation's industrial relations system, encouraging employers and employees to work together for mutual advantage. We took some long overdue reforms on the waterfront, difficult but necessary. We gave confidence to business, confidence that enabled it to go out and grow and to employ more Australians.Against this background, it was interesting to note at the weekend that the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, said that the strength of the Australian economy is due to his policies. Yes, he made a mistake or two, he gave Australians the recession that they had to have, but basically the strength today he claimed for Labor. What did Labor give us? Labor gave us the highest unemployment record since the Great Depression—11.2 per cent in December 1992, more than a million Australians out of work. Labor gave Australian home buyers the highest interest rates—17 per cent. Businesses, of course, were crippled by overdraft rates under Labor, often exceeding 20 per cent. The Keating government promised tax reform but failed to deliver. We did not even get the l-a-w promised tax cuts, and indirect taxes went up. As I said, Labor left a deficit, a black hole, of some $10 billion.We would have thought that at least the new regime for Labor, the opposition today, would have learnt a lesson. But what did Mr Beazley say today about the Keating legacy? He said:Mr Keating as a person and in terms of his political legacy has the strong support of me and all of my former colleagues.In other words, what Mr Beazley is saying is that Labor stands by its previous record of record high unemployment. Labor stands by a legacy of a million Australians out of work. Labor stands by all those young Australians who either could not get work or if they had a house had to sell that house. Labor stands by its record through the recession we had to have of driving so many small businesses to the wall. It is true that some small businesses benefited under Labor. I understand that the piggery business worked well, for some. Some succeeded under Labor. Some profited under Labor. The distinction between this government and the former one is that we want all Australians to have the opportunity to profit from sound economic management, and we are giving them that under these policies we have adopted.28682868Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Has the government received advice from the Public Service regarding the compensation model that has been suggested by Mr Carmody from Access Economics, namely, to increase the pension to 26.5 per cent of average wages? Why did the government not accept this advice and adopt this model? How much would the adoption of this model cost in each of the years in the ANTS package? If the Assistant Treasurer does not know, will he take the question on notice and undertake to provide the information to the Senate at the first opportunity?2868Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Labor Party has never proposed a 26 per cent AWE compensation package. Senator, you had a chance at the election. If you wanted to raise the floor, that option was available to you.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You've promised them they won't be worse off.WW4Senator KEMP—I cannot remember in 1993 Labor providing any compensation package when you raised all those taxes across the board. So it is an astonishing thing—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—This is the compensation for the GST. This is what Carmody says you've got to do.WW4Senator KEMP—Just put a sock in it for a moment, would you, Senator Conroy? Madam President, it is very hard to provide a detailed answer to a question with Senator Conroy insisting on butting in all the time.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You don't understand the issue. You don't even know what Carmody is talking about.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you have asked your question and Senator Kemp now has the opportunity to answer it.WW4Senator KEMP—I know it has been a very big week for Senator Conroy, because he stabbed the Labor leader in Victoria in the back last week. I can well understand why he is overexcited.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I invite you to focus on the question and ignore Senator Conroy.WW4Senator KEMP—As you will be aware, Madam President, I was being unduly provoked. Senator, if you want to find out the overall cost of raising that floor to 26 per cent of MTAWE, I will see what information I can provide you with, as I always do. I am always helpful, particularly to people like you.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Are you taking it on notice? WW4Senator KEMP—I will see what information I am able to provide to Senator Conroy. If there is information I wish to provide to Senator Conroy, I will provide it. Are you happy with that?2869Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Why has the Howard government attempted to trick pensioners into believing that the so-called compensation package will last over time when this has now been conclusively shown by Carmody in the Senate GST inquiry to be a complete fiction? Why did the government mislead the Australian people, both before and after the election, about this crucial issue? How can the government claim that this tax package is fair?2869Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think we are seeing a serious case of overacting over here. Senator, can I just go through it with you. The commitment to provide the four per cent up-front and guarantee a 1½ per cent real increase in pensions, coupled with a 25 per cent of MTAWE commitment, means that pensioners are unambiguously better off under the tax package arrangements that we have provided. What we have done is something that the Labor Party has never done. We have gone to an election with a comprehensive tax package and provided a compensation package which is fair to all taxpayers, people on welfare and people on pensions and provides a real guaranteed rise of 1½ per cent.28692869Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. The government has initiated a range of programs for increasing business activity and jobs in regional Australia. I ask the minister: can he outline the results of those initiatives in regional and rural areas?2869Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Parer for that question. Senator Parer is a distinguished senator from Queensland—one who moves around Queensland quite a lot and understands the importance of government encouragement to businesses in rural and regional Australia. I am pleased to be able to tell Senator Parer and the Senate that as a result of the actions of our government we have achieved a great deal in boosting business activity and therefore jobs in rural and regional Australia. We have undertaken a number of initiatives but, more importantly perhaps, we have got the big picture right: we have got interest rates down to their lowest level for decades and inflation down to its lowest level in three or four decades.But the difficulty we face in helping in rural and regional Australia is this: for every step the government takes forward and private industry and workers take forward, the Labor Party and their union mates seem to take two steps back—as do the union bosses of the Labor Party, of this lot over here, none of whom would be here if it were not for the unions. That is why it disgusts me so much to see the Sun Metals dispute in Townsville. There is an activity that was encouraged by the former Borbidge government, by this government, by Townsville Enterprise Ltd, and by the Townsville City Council. We got this Korean zinc refinery into North Queensland providing real jobs for Australians. It is worth over $500 million in stage 1 and over $1 billion in stage 2, if stage 2 should now go ahead. And why do I say that? Because that very great project for Townsville, a project that has seen Townsville absolutely boom, creating real jobs for workers, has now been put in jeopardy by a stupid, puerile, inter-union dispute. And hear what they are saying over there? None of them is game to say anything, because they are only in the Senate as a result of their union mates. Twenty-six out of 28 of them owe their position here to the unions.There are real workers wanting to get jobs in Townsville and anxious to get in and have a go. I even show you this from the Townsville Bulletin, Madam President: a vote in which workers wanted to go back to work but they were rejected by the union bosses. The bloke that refused to count the hands there, I might say, was a union boss from Victoria. What is he doing in Townsville?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. I just wondered if this diatribe, in your view, was in accordance with the standing orders and relevant to the question that Senator Parer asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think the topic the minister is discussing is relevant to the question. Fewer interjections would be helpful and the minister ignoring them would also be helpful.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—This enterprise in Townsville would create 1,600 direct and indirect jobs. It would put $84 million annually into the economy. But since this strike has been going, $1 million in wages and another $1 million in flow-on costs have been lost to workers and to that economy. And what do the Labor Party say about it? Absolutely nothing. Where is the support from the opposition benches to get that activity in rural and regional Australia going? It is a marvellous enterprise that would create real activity.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Where's Cheryl Kernot?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—She was heard to say that she is always in her electorate. She has only been out into rural Australia once since she has been the shadow minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, stick to the question and ignore interjections.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Madam President. As I say, this is a stupid inter-union dispute. It follows what has happened in New South Wales. Are there any of you there from New South Wales? What happened in New South Wales when we wanted to give some young people a job? We wanted to develop regional Australia, and in New South Wales the AWU stopped that Work for the Dole program. And what did the New South Wales government and what did you lot from New South Wales do about it? Absolutely nothing. (Time expired)28702870Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that local government is deeply concerned about the impact of the GST and that not one local government organisation or council has made a submission to the Senate inquiry supporting the tax package as it currently stands? Has the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government drawn these concerns to the minister's attention, and how does the minister propose to satisfy these concerns?2870Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have had the benefit of listening to the questions which have been put to Senator Ian Macdonald in recent times over the effect of the GST on local councils. I do not think I even need to go back to check my Hansard to note that Senator Macdonald is saying that the GST tax reform package is overall going to be of great benefit to local governments.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—That is not what they are saying.WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked whether Senator Ian Macdonald had brought to my attention some of the concerns which Senator Mackay apparently has. What I am saying is that I have listened very carefully to the questioning of Senator Ian Macdonald in the Senate, and Senator Macdonald has made very clear the very substantial benefits local government will receive from the tax reform package. So that answers your question, Senator. You asked me whether Senator Ian Macdonald brought concerns to my attention, Senator, and I said that I have heard him speak on this quite a number of times. Senator Macdonald has been very effective, in my view, in pointing out the very substantial benefits.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You've made him look good, Rod.WW4Senator KEMP—He is good. You are quite right, Senator Ray. Senator Macdonald is very good. That is one of the reasons that this government is having a lot of rapport with local governments. Thank you, Senator Ray. It is because we have someone of the quality of Senator Macdonald to get out and sell the message.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections on my left and there is too much shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—Local government, along with the rest of the Australia economy, will certainly benefit from the government's tax reform package. Senator Mackay does not like the package but, as I have pointed out, this package is good for local government, good for Australians, good for taxpayers and good for pensioners. The only people, it seems to me, who constantly whinge and moan about it—and failed to convince the Australian people at the election—were Senator Mackay and her colleagues.2871Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that not one submission that has been made to the Senate inquiry from local government supports the tax package as it currently stands. Further, is the minister aware that local government organisations have rejected the government's assertions that local government will be $70 million better off as a result of the GST? Is the minister aware that the Australian Local Government Association, for example, says that it `disputes the magnitude of the direct and indirect financial benefit from the removal of the burden of taxes in the goods and services used by Local Government' and that `despite Local Government request, Treasury will not explain the assumptions underlying its methodology'? Can the minister explain what methodology was used to calculate the $70 million?2871Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There is a full range of follow-up questions there from Senator Mackay. First of all, you quoted the Australian Local Government Association. I have here a quote from Mr Rod Nettle, and I thank the local government minister for bringing it to my attention. This is what Mr Nettle said—as distinct from the selective quoting that you have been going on with:Senate committees themselves, really are a bit of window-dressing for the government's policy. They are determined to get the GST through, and I think that's fair enough. They can claim a reasonable mandate for it.This is not me saying this, and it is not Senator Ian Macdonald saying this. This is a quote from Mr Rod Nettle, the CEO of the Australian Local Government Association. (Time expired)28712871Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to the return to order for Jabiluka documents, which the minister partially met on 8 March. I refer in particular to the documents he withheld. Does the minister recall that he listed four grounds for refusal in his tabling statement of 8 March? Does the minister also recall that, in a letter to me 48 hours later, two of his original grounds for refusal had disappeared completely and a new, fifth ground for refusal had been introduced? I notice that the minister has not taken the opportunity to make a correcting statement and an explanation of this to the Senate, and I ask which is the correct statement and the correct list of grounds for refusal—the minister's tabling statement to the Senate on 8 March, or the minister's letter to me on 10 March?2871Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is an obscure question. I suggest that the honourable senator takes into account the two reasons that were omitted in the second letter and adds the fifth.2871Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I am not sure that I understand the answer to the question very accurately, but I believe that my question to him was which of those statements is correct. I do not believe that they can both be correct at the same time. However, the minister may enlighten me. On a supplementary question on the same matter, one of the grounds of refusal that I note remained in both of the minister's statements was that the documents were `internal workings of government' and `should not be disclosed on the basis of public interest immunity'. Is the minister aware that this ground was summarily dismissed as a ground for refusal to release documents by Mr Justice Hill of the Federal Court in 1997? Does the minister know that Mr Justice Hill found the government's motivation was `that the public not see what goes on behind closed doors' and that he said that it was `not in the interests of the administration of justice—(Time expired)2871Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The trouble was, I have to confess, that I did not understand the question; but I will refer to the previous correspondence and write to the honourable senator again and hope that I can clarify those matters. In relation to the Justice Hill judgment, from memory I think that that might have been in relation to the Freedom of Information Act, and I would answer that the rules that we have applied by practice in here over a long period of time do take that act into account and have been in more recent times guided by that act but it is not the total explanation. I will also examine that judgment and see if there is anything I can add to help.28722872Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp representing the Treasurer. Minister, what is the government's response to Premier Bacon's call for special compensation for Tasmania to offset the negative impact of the GST?2872Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I make the point that the GST package is one which also benefits states, and that the state governments have signed the agreement because of the benefits that will flow to state governments—who, of course, obtain all the revenue from the GST.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Will they get more or less?WW4Senator KEMP—We will give them a guaranteed three years and, after that, the robust nature of the revenue flows from GST will be of huge benefit to state governments. I point out that Tasmania, along with other state governments, will certainly benefit from that. We do not accept that any state will be worse off as a result of the GST. All the states will benefit; indeed, the formula that has been established will certainly show that.2872Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Assistant Treasurer whether he is aware that the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Mr Chris Murphy, has calculated that Tasmania will be a net loser of 1,000 jobs under the GST? Doesn't this actually lend weight to the Tasmanian government's claim that the GST will only exacerbate an already poor labour market situation for Tasmania? I ask: what concrete steps is the government going to take to address these Tasmanian concerns?2872Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Commonwealth has guaranteed—as I pointed out—that in the three years following the introduction of the GST the budgetary position of Tasmania will be no worse off than it would have been in the absence of tax reform.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: I asked the minister—as you would be aware, Madam President—specifically about Mr Chris Murphy's calculation that Tasmania would lose a net 1,000 jobs under the GST. I ask you to ask the minister to address himself—for a change today—to the question before the chair.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister is aware of the question.WW4Senator KEMP—I was asked in what ways would the economy benefit in Tasmania. Senator, there are quite a range of ways it will benefit. The cost of transporting goods and passengers across Bass Strait will be reduced by the effective limitation of the tax on marine fuel—one big and important benefit to Tasmania. The net excise on diesel fuel used in heavy transport and rail will also fall sharply. That will also be of help in Tasmania. Those who operate in the tourist area will benefit from lower transport costs. So we believe that the overall effect of the GST is good for jobs, good for the economy and good for the states.28722872Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is also to the Assistant Treasurer. I ask: will the government legislate to close loopholes in the laws allowing MPs with previous service in state parliaments who have become federal MPs to double-dip by taking a state lump sum as well as a federal pension upon retirement, and, secondly, allowing federal MPs access to superannuation entitlements before the age of 55? I would be quite happy to redirect that question if that is appropriate.2872Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Kemp has a new look today. That question should rightly have been directed to the Minister for Finance. I think that is what Senator Brown was alluding to at the tail end.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: I ask, given that you called Senator Kemp, is it appropriate that Senator Ellison address the Senate in this way, without the call from you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have called Senator Kemp. If he does not wish to deal with the question, I think he should indicate why somebody else has been given the question before it is answered.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Madam President, I think if the Hansard is reviewed we will see that Senator Brown noted that the question was probably being directed to the wrong minister. I think he said at the end of his question he would redirect his question to the right minister. Is that correct, Senator Brown?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, that's right.9X5Senator ELLISON—In relation to the question by Senator Brown, I can advise the Senate that the arrangements for members with service in more than one parliament are identical to arrangements in the private sector where employees are able to retain the superannuation benefits accrued in that previous employment. In other words, a federal parliamentarian who once served in a state parliament is treated no differently from a federal parliamentarian who once worked for a bank, a law firm or even a trade union. Members elected since 1 July 1994 who have prior state parliamentary service can receive benefits from each jurisdiction that reflect the period of service in each respective parliament. Before that time, the Commonwealth often had to fund both Commonwealth and state entitlements while the state scheme paid nothing. In relation to other matters relating to more personal details, for privacy reasons it would not be appropriate for me to go into them.2873Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: can he not see the concern and the increasing criticism that is coming upon the federal superannuation scheme through the ability of some MPs to be able to double-dip—to wit, to take a lump sum payment from a state parliament superannuation fund of between half a million and a million dollars and then a federal pension on top of that? Does the minister not see that this is inherently wrong, that it is an affront to public sensitivity about the way in which taxpayers' money is spent and that the law needs to change? My second question to the minister was this: will the government review the law to amend it so that superannuation arrangements are not available before the age of 55?2873Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to Senator Brown's supplementary question, I remind the Senate that the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation reported on its inquiry into superannuation for parliamentarians on 1 September 1997. The government responded to that by saying that it would respond to the report in light of changes included in the proposed legislation in the Public Service Bill which has been twice rejected in this chamber. What the government is saying is, firstly, sort out the remuneration package for members of parliament, and then go on to the question of superannuation. But that question of remuneration is tied up in the Public Service Bill, which has been rejected in the Senate. The government still has to deal with that question before it gets on to responding to the committee's inquiry into parliamentary superannuation.28732873Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of recent announcements by the Prime Minister regarding funding for drug treatment activities? Is it not a fact that drug treatment is not included in the definition of a GST exempt health service, unless it is counselling delivered by a registered medical practitioner? Would not the GST apply to accommodation, food and other services provided by community organisations? Will the government increase the grants to community organisations to compensate for the higher costs of delivering services if the GST were to be introduced or will the government be forcing these small community based organisations to pay this new tax out of their existing grants, therefore reducing the real value of the funding?2873Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am glad that Senator Evans pointed out the very important announcements that have been made by the Prime Minister in relation to funding for drugs, which we all appreciate is an exceedingly serious problem in the community. Senator, you mentioned treatments provided through registered medically approved arrangements. There are GST arrangements which apply there. A lot of the treatments are, of course, provided through charities. This, I suspect, would typically be of a non-commercial nature and the focal point of much of the work of the charities, and therefore would be GST free.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—No, Senator, you've got that wrong too.WW4Senator KEMP—Non-commercial work of charities is, let me assure you, GST free. I think that much of the work that is being performed is. We are very conscious of the importance of this work. The government is very conscious of the importance of putting in place programs to deal with this problem. As I said, much of the work which was referred to in the latter part of the question is provided by bodies that come under the heading of `charities', and of course that work in the non-commercial area is GST free.2874Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I start by pointing out to the minister that his answer was not related to the question, which was about community based organisations, not charities. So I would appreciate it if the minister would take that question on notice and give us an answer. My supplementary question is: is the minister aware that pharmacists charge people on the methadone program up to $35 a week for dispensing methadone from chemists? Will these charges be exempt from the GST in the same way that the PBS charges are exempt?2874Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I notice that the senator mentioned that under the current arrangements a charge is made. I would imagine that these are the sorts of products which can only be supplied by chemists, and therefore there are special rules which apply to that under the bill that we have brought before the parliament.28742874Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Ellison. The minister would no doubt be aware of articles in the weekend newspapers regarding the content of some university student handbooks. My question is: who funds these handbooks, and is there any federal funding provided for the publication of these handbooks? Further, will the government's voluntary student unionism bill have an impact on such publications?2874Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I thank Senator Synon for this very important question, and acknowledge her longstanding interest in this very important question. I also want to acknowledge the guffaws from the opposition on what is a very important matter—the question of drug abuse. What we have here is a matter which is a concern for all Australians. At the weekend there were reports of the University of Technology, Sydney, publishing in its orientation day handbook a step-by-step guide to how to inject heroin. This appealed to a young audience—and some 5,000 booklets were issued—an audience which is most at risk in relation to drug abuse. In the article, advice was given on injecting heroin, including how to insert the needle, how to release the tourniquet and how to test if the needle was in the vein. This article has been roundly criticised by the Salvation Army, an organisation which is at the coalface of drug abuse in looking after those with a drug addiction. This publication came from student funds. It came from fees which were compulsorily acquired. It is extremely unhelpful in the face of the government's initiative of Tough on Drugs, where it is spending some $290 million in the war on drugs. This is not about harm minimisation, but about harm promotion.But this is not the first time that student associations have used student funds to produce magazines and handbooks which have included irresponsible articles. Let us remember the ANU student magazine, Woroni, which published an article which gave a number of suggestions for avoiding drink-driving charges. But what about La Trobe University's magazine, Rabelais, which issued a guide on shoplifting? These handbooks are an example of how these compulsory fees are being used in an irresponsible manner. The government believes that student associations do have an important role to play on campuses. I note that Senator Evans had something to say on this. He acknowledged the drug problem in the previous question in relation to counselling. Perhaps he can say whether he thinks that student associations should be publishing articles on how to inject heroin and providing a step-by-step guide.This government believes in, and is strongly committed to, the principles of the freedom of the individual and particularly freedom of association, as evidenced by our workplace changes and reforms. This government has now honoured its longstanding policy to introduce voluntary student unionism, thereby guaranteeing freedom of association on all Australian university campuses. This is a freedom which my state has enjoyed since 1995. The introduction of VSU will give students the right to choose whether they belong to a student association or not. It will give students greater choice as to what goods and services they wish to use and purchase. They will have a say as to whether they join an association that uses its funds to provide instructions on heroin use. The current compulsory fee applied on most university campuses is charged to students to pay for the services their student association provides as a condition of enrolment and irrespective of whether the students use these services or not. No fee, no degree—that is what these students are faced with on Australian campuses today. In fact, when you look at the compulsory fees involved, you are looking at some $180 to $350 a year, no mean amount for a student. This is a significant compulsory financial burden on students. (Time expired)2875Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister further elaborate on the government's plans for the introduction of voluntary student unionism?2875Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I have mentioned, the government does have legislation to provide for this freedom of choice. The government is not saying that people should not belong to a student association, but that they should have the right to choose: they have the freedom to belong to that association or not. As proven in my state already, student services have not diminished. They will not be diminished by the introduction of this legislation. In fact, it will make student associations more competitive in the services they provide to students. They will be forced to look at what students need, not necessarily whether they are going to print articles on how to avoid drink-driving, how to use heroin or how to go about shoplifting. They will have to address the important issues that students are really concerned with. Students do not want their associations printing stuff like we have seen on the weekend, encouraging young people on how to use heroin—and, in the past, showing them how to break the law.28752875Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Has the minister changed his mind about scrapping the accelerated depreciation tax concession, in view of the strong criticism of the proposal from the National Party and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources? Is the minister aware that Senator Minchin has signalled his intention to argue against the plan, and that the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association has stated that it is essential that Senator Minchin be successful? Will the minister persist in the face of such powerful opposition?2875Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—A similar question was asked in this chamber recently. It is probably important to get the facts of this on the table. The Ralph committee has produced a report with various options. Included in those options is the option of looking at the possibility of moving to a 30 per cent company tax rate and looking at the various concessions which are available to business, including the one which was mentioned by the senator—accelerated depreciation. There is an options paper which is now the subject of public debate. Undoubtedly, because this is a very important issue, a range of people are putting forward their views. You mentioned the National Party. That is quite possible. The president of the National Party may well have put forward a view on this. Others are putting forward alternative views. But, Senator, understand there is an options paper in which the Ralph committee—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber and there are too many senators interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. A consultation period is currently occurring. People who have views they wish to put to the Ralph committee should put them by 16 April. Senator, you may have a view that you wish to put on the issue of accelerated depreciation.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—What's your view?WW4Senator KEMP—My position will be quite clear. Mine will be the government position.2876Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Is the proposed 30 per cent corporate tax rate absolutely dependent on the scrapping of the accelerated depreciation tax concession?2876Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What you will have to wait for, Senator, is the final report and recommendations of the Ralph committee. There are a whole host of issues which are being considered by the Ralph committee. The issue of accelerated depreciation happens to be one of them. I would urge you to contain your enthusiasm and wait until people have had a chance to put their views to the Ralph committee and the recommendations that the Ralph committee will be making to the government on this important topic. Essentially, we are a low tax party. We are a low tax government. We are different from the Labor Party which, as Senator Cook said, is a high tax party. You can be absolutely assured, Senator, that, whatever we do, we will be heading right in the direction of lower taxes.28762876Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the return to order of 16 weeks of Jabiluka documents that the minister partially complied with on Monday, 8 March, and particularly to the documents he withheld. Minister, in your letter to Senator Allison of 10 March, you list a letter written by you to the chair of the World Heritage Committee that you refused to release without the permission of the addressee. However, in partially complying with the return to order, you released no fewer than 11 documents addressed to the World Heritage Committee including at least four personal letters from you to the chair. Did the minister seek and receive the permission of the addressees to release all of these letters? If not, why have you made an entirely arbitrary decision to withhold your letter to the chair of the World Heritage Committee dated 29 January?2876Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am surprised to get questions on Jabiluka today because I thought the Democrats would raise the announcement on Beverley and the fact that, since the Senate last met, the government has found all environmental approvals in order and there is $30 million of capital investment with another 400 jobs to be created in South Australia.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I raise a point of order, Madam President. The minister may have wished I had asked a question on Beverley but unfortunately for him I did not. I asked a question on Jabiluka and his return to order. Madam President, I ask you to direct him to the question.BH4Senator HILL—I take that as a Democrat endorsement of the Beverley uranium mine. They do appreciate the fact that 400 new jobs are going to be created in South Australia, with a $30 million capital investment. It is good for South Australia, good for Australia and good for greenhouse as well. Perhaps that is why the Democrats so approve of it.8U4LEESSenator Lees—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. I know that Senator Hill wants to answer questions on Beverley. We would welcome the opportunity to ask two additional questions today. We do not have the chance, unfortunately, to discuss yet another environmentally unfriendly mine. Can he please answer the question directed by Senator Bartlett?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention, Senator Hill, to the question which Senator Bartlett has asked.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, I think the honourable senator fails to appreciate that I actually want to give him this letter. As soon as the delivery of the letter has been agreed by the chairman, to whom I wrote, I will give it to him.2877Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In the minister's tabling statement for the documents and in his subsequent letter to Senator Allison he also states that a ground for refusal is that the release of such documents could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth. Yet in media releases, in answers in Senate estimates and indeed in answer to a question from Senator Allison in this place on 8 March, the minister stated that he just wanted to get `the true facts about the issue to the members of the World Heritage Committee'. My question to the minister is: if the documents the minister has withheld simply provide the truth and the facts to the World Heritage Committee, how could these true facts reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth?2877Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, it is a long-established principle that governments should have certain confidentiality in their dealings with other governments. It is for a very good reason; that is, if that principle did not exist, other governments would not be so forthcoming and that would be to Australia's detriment. I would have thought that every honourable senator in this place knew that principle and would respect it. That is the way in which we operate and that is the reason why we decline to provide these documents.28772877Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware that a senior member of the government's GST task force, which was responsible for designing the GST compensation package, has revealed in testimony to the Senate GST inquiry that at no time was he made aware of the government's commitment to compensate families with a dependent 17- to 21-year-old for the effects of the Youth Allowance? Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister, the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Treasurer, all of whom were aware of this commitment, failed to take any action to ensure it was honoured?2877Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would believe that statements which have been made by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this matter are absolutely valid. I cannot add anything more to the information which you have sought. I am not aware that a member of the GST task force has made such a comment.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Why aren't you aware? Don't you read the paper?2877Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not aware. You asked me whether the Prime Minister's comments were correct. As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister's comments were absolutely correct.2877Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It seems that the government cannot be trusted to honour a commitment to compensate families hurt by the changes in the Youth Allowance. How can it be trusted to compensate all families for the GST?2877Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is a dreadfully weak question. It goes to my old theory. I am so tired of saying this and advising the Labor Party, `Do not take questions written by Senator Cook.' I have said that on many occasions. What this government wants to do is to keep the promises that we made to the Australian people and on which we were elected. What this Senate should do is insist that the government keep its promises. We believe what we are seeing with Senator Hogg and others is an attempt to frustrate the government, to prevent the government from keeping the promises that we made to the Australian people and on which we were elected.28772877Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. The government is taking important steps to protect Australian children against highly offensive materials on the Internet. Will the minister inform the Senate of these measures? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals?2878Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is a very important social policy issue and I am delighted that Senator Gibson has brought it to the attention of the Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Can't you be serious about censorship?LD4Senator ALSTON—You mightn't be serious about it, but we are. The fact is that the community expects us to take action to ensure that illegal and unacceptably offensive material is not readily available on the Internet just as we take—Senator Robert Ray interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you are the ultimate civil libertarian and you do not care about these things, but there are many hundreds of thousands of Australians who do. We do not allow these things on free to air television. We have very tight restrictions in relation to other mediums and there is absolutely no reason, other than a council of despair, why we should not take a similar approach to the Internet. But what sort of response do we get from the Labor Party? Madam President, I simply do not understand where the Labor Party is on this issue. Even the Democrats gave muted support to the principle, and the Internet Association has just released its own code of practice. On the other side of the chamber, they want to pretend it is—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections. Some senators have been interjecting persistently during question time today. I would ask you to abide by the standing orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. At the moment, you can get snuff movies, paedophile lists, bong recipes, you name it.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Tell us how you are going to do it.LD4Senator ALSTON—Does anyone seriously suggest that we should not be making every effort, that we should not spell out the principles? No, but this is the sort of mindless nonsense you get from poor old Senator Lundy, the shadow for shadows. What we are interested in is doing our best, which is what the Sydney Morning Herald had to say and what anyone who has addressed the issue has to say. What does the shadow minister have to say? You know Glim and Glimmer because you would have seen them on television recently at the leader's CEDA launch. I know you were not there. There were only eight of your colleagues there altogether, but that is more than there were of the business community. That gives you a fair indication of how seriously you are being taken out there. What our Western Australian member of that duo did was, in the morning, to say that the opposition supported measures aimed at restricting Internet pornography. By the afternoon, what he had managed to do was to come out and say that he certainly favoured action being taken to protect children, but as far as he was concerned the most effective way of doing that was to make sure that parents, families and schools were empowered.Of course, `empower' is a very important word in the Labor Party. It is something that they throw around at branch meetings, and it comes up all the time. You can just imagine someone coming home after a hard day's work in the factory, throwing himself down in front of the television and saying, `Please empower me.' Parents want more than that. They do not want you to educate them as to how they can teach their children to handle the Internet—80 per cent of households do not even have the Internet. What conceivable purpose could be achieved by somehow empowering parents? The reality is that you have to take action. You have to be prepared to stand up and lead.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many people on my left shouting throughout the answer to this question.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am appalled that CEDA have abandoned their requirement for a quorum. If they had had the usual rules, we would not have all been subjected to the circus of last week. What an embarrassment. I do not know if anyone read Alan Ramsey, but you have got to say it is good value. He said:Any speech that asks 17 questions of itself and then provides no answers beyond generalities and the assertion that the road ahead is all too clearly before us—I am for courage in the face of change.Here you are: here is an opportunity to be courageous. Get out there and say that you favour principles and that you favour codes of practice that will control access to the Internet. Your shadow minister does not mention X-rated, so what do we take from that? Do we take it that he is relaxed about X-rated, that he has never heard of it or that he doesn't know what to do about it? We are prepared to do something about it. We are standing up on the issue and I hope that you will take the opportunity to address it civilly. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2879287915:02:002879Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the proposed new tax system.In moving this motion, I wish to concentrate on Senator Kemp's first two answers to questions from Senator Cook and Senator Conroy. This is the great sleight of hand, the great con trick proposed by this government that will leave pensioners and those on benefits worse off as a result of the GST. The compensation is inadequate, and it has become clear in recent weeks that, over time, even that meagre compensation will be totally eroded. Pensioners will not be adequately compensated and it is believed that after three or four years there will in fact be no compensation for those on Commonwealth benefits.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many conversations taking place on both sides of the chamber. If you want to hold a conversation, please do so outside or resume your seats—and do so silently. Thank you very much.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—The government try to hide behind the claim that they are offering an extra 1½ per cent compensation up-front. Of course that is only the case if you accept their modelling, and most people do not because, even on their assumptions, it is quite clear that the price increases will be much greater than they are predicting.Putting that argument to one side for today's purposes, what is clear is that the compensation package will be eroded over time. The churches and charities have been saying this for months, and the Liberal Party have been ridiculing them for making those submissions. But it has now become clear that even the Liberal Party's own economists are saying the very same thing. The other day, we had Geoff Carmody of Access Economics—representing the Australian Food and Grocery Council, part of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform—arguing the same case the churches, the charities and the community groups have been arguing, that is, the compensation for the GST to pensioners will not last and will be eroded. He claims it will be eroded to zero. He says, `Everyone who says the compensation package will not last is dead right.' This bloke ought to have some credibility with this government, because he helped write Fightback—the very agenda which they are seeking to continue to implement.This is not one of the church groups, one of the charity groups or one of the caring people in the community the Liberal Party are so fond of ridiculing. This is one of their own right-wing economists, representing business interests, who is saying the compensation package will not last, that it will be eroded. He is saying that pensioners in this country will be poorer for a GST. Even on the government's own figures, he is saying, they will be poorer for a GST.This does not go to the arguments about consumption patterns, which I would like to explore on another occasion. The consumption patterns of pensioners have not been taken into account in designing the compensation; it is an average across all Australian consumers, and pensioners are much higher consumers of food and services that are currently tax exempt, so they will be much more adversely impacted by the GST than the government's figures allow.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—But, putting that argument to one side, it is clear that the compensation package is totally inadequate. I think that is why Senator Campbell is so sensitive about it, because it is a fraud, it is a con trick. Geoff Carmody from Access Economics has joined all the charitable groups in saying so. If the government were dinkum, they would fix the compensation as a percentage of male total average weekly earnings, because the government made great play of the need to fix that at a 25 per cent benchmark previously. They said legislation was necessary and they claimed that this was a great achievement of the government. But they will not adjust that compensation to include the GST compensation, because they intend it to be eroded over time. They do not want to preserve it. If they were dinkum, if they were serious, they would increase that percentage to 26.5 per cent or the appropriate figure as a percentage of male total average weekly earnings. I suspect it needs to be higher, but even Mr Carmody is saying it needs to be 26.5 per cent.They are not dinkum. If the government were dinkum about preserving compensation, protecting the poor and protecting pensioners, they would include that definition, increase the compensation and benchmark it. They are not prepared to because they are not dinkum. They know the poor will get poorer, and it is a policy of this government. They do this knowingly. This is not an unforeseen circumstance. The government know that the compensation will be eroded and, as in New Zealand and in Canada, those people on pensions and fixed incomes will be worse off because the compensation will be eroded. It is not adequate anyway, but what little there is will be eroded. (Time expired)15:07:002880Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—All Australia knows that the current tax system is an absolute mess. All Australia knows that, everybody knows the tax system is in a mess. But who are against tax reform? The Labor Party. The Labor Party are against tax reform. They have been fighting against everything the government has proposed about reforming taxes. We have put up a comprehensive tax proposal to the Australian community and to the parliament—the ANTS package—which is about reforming indirect taxes and making them fairer and more comprehensive to make sure that those people on social security are guaranteed incomes in the future. That is what the indirect tax reform is about.We are also on about reforming income taxes. The complaints are legion in the income tax field. People on low and medium incomes complain that the marginal rates of income tax are a disincentive to their working, working overtime, working at weekends and working at night. Why? Because the income tax rates they pay are too high. Someone on average weekly earnings in Australia—$38,000 currently—faces a marginal income tax rate of 43 per cent plus 1.5 per cent. Almost half of every extra dollar they earn is lost in taxes to the government. That is why the income tax system has to be reformed. Under our reform proposal, 80 per cent of all income earners—those on incomes of between $20,000 and $50,000—will face a marginal income tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar plus 1.5 per cent, which is a rate of 31.5 cents in the dollar. So they will have incentive to work and to save.On top of that, we are promising reforms of excise tax. Fuel costs will go down by $3½ billion—$13 billion in income tax and $3½ billion on fuel excise. Fuel cost reductions will have a tremendous impact on transport costs in Australia. Transport costs will go down. Treasury's estimate is that road transport costs in Australia will go down by 6.7 per cent. The Australian Road Transport Forum appeared before the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System a few weeks ago in Sydney and made the prediction that, with the wholesale sales tax reductions and the fuel excise reductions, transport costs for big trucks in Australia will go down by between 15 per cent and 19 per cent.Senator Sherry interjecting—BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—Of course they will. They gave evidence that when fuel prices go up and down, their costs go up and down. It is a very competitive industry, so that is what is going to happen. These reforms are going to revolutionise Australia and the Australian economy. It is the next big thing that needs to be done in the Australian economy. The Australian economy is going well now. The government has really reformed it. It has stopped the big spending Labor Party. The government has done a great job in reforming the economy. There is high economic growth and the lowest interest rates for 20 years. The government has done a great job and the next great thing to be done is tax reform.The Labor Party are claiming that the government is not doing it correctly. The Labor Party have been trying to drum up support from around the traps to complain to the various Senate committees hearing the implications of tax reform, and virtually every group has come along and said, `We are in favour of tax reform, but not us, please. We have a special case to plead.' Lots of groups have made that plea.With regard to compensation, all the evidence before the committee is that the government's compensation package is more than adequate. ACOSS's report, using the Melbourne Institute economic modelling, showed clearly that for all the groups they examined, the cost increase was less than the four per cent proposed in the CPI adjustment by the government. The government—on top of the four per cent—has guaranteed a 1½ per cent increase in pensions and entitlements above the CPI. That is what the government has offered, and that is adequate.The weekly earnings adjustment gives two parallel roads for pension adjustment. Whichever wins out, the pensioner wins out with it. (Time expired)15:12:002881Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to take note of the answers to questions given by Senator Kemp today or, should I say, in respect of the first two questions, a lack of answers given by Senator Kemp to those questions. When you listen to the answers the minister gives to questions, it is obvious that, firstly, he has no comprehension at all of the questions that he is being asked, and, secondly, he gets his answers out of eavesdropping on the Treasurer's telephone calls because he only ever has half the story when he does present something to this chamber. The Treasurer should put his phone calls on speaker so that Senator Kemp can hear the whole story, and maybe we might get some intelligent answers out of Senator Kemp when he is asked a question in this chamber. It is very difficult, but at least, if he heard the whole story, there might be half a chance that we would get an intelligent answer.But he did say in response to a question from Senator Hogg that this government was about keeping its promises. There is one promise it has consistently walked around this country saying that it would keep, and that is that it would compensate people—particularly low income earners—for the effect of the GST. That promise has turned out to be an absolute myth. As Senator Evans said, the myth was exploded by Mr Geoff Carmody, representing the Australian Food and Grocery Council, at hearings on the GST last week. He said that the present compensation package will not endure, and that wage earners would be worse off after just two to three years—not a long-term evaporation of the compensation package but over a two- to three-year period. The Food and Grocery Council is a member of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform—the people who argued for a GST—and it is the first major business group that has directly criticised the adequacy of the compensation package.What Senator Gibson said is true: we have had innumerable individuals representing a wide range of community groups come before the GST select committee all saying that they want an exemption of one form or another from the impact of the GST. Whether it be those sections that represent the welfare community, the transport industry, the NRMA or other automobile associations, they have all come along with a wish list of exemptions. In fact, if all the exemptions that have been brought before the committee are put into the final report the list will be so substantial it will overwhelm the report. And this is a package that supposedly, this government argues, has substantial support out and about in the community.Mr Carmody went on to say that the way in which the government had arranged the compensation package—by linking it to inflation rather than tying it to male average weekly earnings—will over time erode the package. Over time it will eventually bring the pensions back to what they were at the point when the compensation package was introduced.The only person on that side of the chamber who has had the guts to get up and be honest about what the effects of this package will be on low income earners—and I note that you have not put him on the list of people to speak in this debate—was Senator Watson. He had the courage to get up at the Liberal Party meeting in Tasmania last year and call on the government to provide a substantially greater compensation package because the current package was inadequate. And what did you do? As soon as he got to Canberra you put the nobbles on him and he has not been heard arguing that issue since. That is not somebody getting up on this side and arguing the issue; that is one of your own senators, one of the people you parade out. (Time expired)15:17:002882Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—The issue raised by the Labor Party in question time today is a complete furphy. The witness Carmody before the Senate select committee last week did not say that the government's compensation package is inadequate, nor did he say that the compensation package would be eroded in absolute terms. He simply put forward an argument regarding the relativity between the government's compensation package and our guarantee of pensions being maintained at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That does not mean in any way, shape or form that the increase being provided to pensions will not be enough to cover the additional costs of living which the GST will cause. That is because the compensation package which the government is offering is more than adequate.Even those economists who provided evidence to the committee and who claim that the price effect of the introduction of a goods and services tax will be more than the 1.9 per cent predicted by Treasury acknowledge that the price effect will still be less than four per cent and the government is guaranteeing a minimum of four per cent compensation to pensioners and other low income earners.Over and above that the government has guaranteed that, if the CPI effect is higher than estimated, the compensation provided will be 1.5 per cent more than the CPI increase resulting from the goods and services tax. So let there be absolutely no mistake about this: adequate compensation is being provided by the government in its tax reform package.The issue that Labor is raising today is a red herring. Labor is not concerned about compensation being offered to low income earners in our tax reform package because Labor is not interested in tax reform. The Labor Party has embarked on blanket opposition to the tax reform proposals of the government. Again they are completely ignoring much of the evidence that has been put to the select committee and the other committees examining this evidence. The evidence provided to those committees shows overwhelmingly the need for tax reform, it shows overwhelmingly that our current tax system is broken and beyond repair. The reasons for that are manifold. Firstly, unless tax reform is implemented, people on average weekly earnings today will have a marginal tax rate of 43 per cent. Every extra dollar they earn over average weekly earnings will cost them 43 cents in the dollar tax. Before too long, within the next couple of years, they will be paying 47 cents in the dollar on every extra dollar earned. There is absolutely no incentive in our current income tax structure for people to work either smarter or harder to earn extra dollars because they are going to lose half of it by the year 2000. That punishment to incentive is a major reason why we need urgent tax reform.Let us also recall that in the early 1950s a person had to be earning something like 17 times average weekly earnings before their marginal tax rate was at the top rate. Yet today, as I said, they will be hitting the top marginal tax rate when they are earning 1.2 or 1.3 times the average weekly earnings. Within the next couple of years people earning average weekly earnings will be hitting the top marginal tax rate. That is just another example of the way in which our current system is broken.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Thanks to Labor.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Thanks to Labor's inexorable tax increases when they were in office, Senator Knowles. Of course, the system is also broken because of our outmoded wholesale sales tax structure. It was introduced in the 1930s when we had an economy based on consumption primarily of goods. Most of what people spent their incomes on was goods—very little was spent on services. Today we have a transformation in consumption spending so that people now spend most of their incomes on services, which do not attract any indirect tax directly. Therefore, we need to change our system to ensure that we have a fair indirect tax that taxes consumption across the board and is not limited to the very narrow base of goods. It is unfair to individuals; it is also unfair to states like South Australia which are still very dependent on the production of goods as part of their economic base—so South Australia bears a disproportionate share of our indirect tax system compared with other states. So in fairness to individuals and to regions of Australia we need to reform our indirect tax system.(Time expired)15:22:002883Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—It is important, when taking note of the very insufficient answers from Senator Kemp today, to recognise that the government itself acknowledges that the GST legislation is regressive, and that is why there has to be some compensation. The government knows that this GST legislation requires compensation to even get near to being fair. It advantages the top end of town and it makes it appalling for the people at the lower end of town—that is, the poor people and people on low incomes. There has to be compensation to even begin to make this GST package fair. All of the evidence that we now have is that the compensation is inadequate. It does not work.People came before our committee and said, `This debate is not about economic models, it is about people.' The evidence over and over again from all of the organisations—St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, the Uniting Church, the councils of social service—looking after poor people, representing them, and providing support and backup for them was that the compensation is not sufficient. It does not work. This is legislation that is writing into law forever a basic unfairness in the Australian society.The rich will be getting $80 a week in tax cuts and the poor people will be getting $6 a week in compensation. What kind of fairness is that? As one witness in South Australia said, as he held up a packet of Just Right cereal that costs $6.10, people will be getting $6 per week but this one packet of cereal will do away with the compensation for the week. It is clearly not sufficient. That evidence is now confirmed by Professor Carmody. It is unfair because the compensation is a short-term best guess. But the Treasury's models—to return to those terrible things—did not take into account the lowest quintile, that is, the people on the lowest incomes. They were not included.St Vincent de Paul and others went and interviewed people on very low incomes. They told us, like Treasury cannot, that 30 per cent of the household income of people on low incomes goes on food, and all of that food will be going up by near enough to 10 per cent. Another 30 per cent of their household income goes on housing and that also will increase. The government recognises that in its own document. The compensation clearly will not provide anything like the maintenance of the modest life that people on low incomes have now. It is nothing short of scandalous that this government, which is so clear in what it wants to do, refuses to recognise the evidence.You would think that the inquiry that has been forced on the government might be used by the government to repair the damage done by its thoughtless and ill-considered—or, as I think, properly considered, because this is the way it wants the world to be: the rich get on and the poor get behind—legislation and that it might take note of some of the evidence. But all the government does is send its ministers—including the insufficient Senator Kemp—in here today to totally disparage the evidence that has been provided by thousands of witnesses, who are not paid stoolies of the Labor Party and who did not come only to say that their organisations would be badly affected, although most of them did say that. But for thousands of organisations it was because they know, from speaking to people on low incomes and from the evidence that they have from the daily lives of families who go in and out of their organisations, how badly these families will be affected. They have done the work and they know how tough it is for people at the moment and they know that the compensation in this legislation will not meet the needs.It is even worse when you add to that the evidence that it will not last. Within a few years, even by the government's own figuring, the revenue raised by the proposed GST legislation will not do anything more than be back to flat and the government will have to raise the rate of the GST. This is what has happened in every other country, and there is no provision for any adjusted compensation at that level either. Even without going that far down the track, it is clear, despite what the incompetent minister said today, that the compensation package will not go near to providing even maintenance of the current livelihood of people on the low income end of the scale. What kind of legislation gives an $80 tax cut to people on an income above $75,000 and $6 compensation for the poor? (Time expired)15:27:002884Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today we have reached a new peak, I suppose, in the stupidity of this debate from an opposition that is voting against the legislation. We have just heard a dissertation from Senator Crowley, who is complaining that the compensation in this legislation is inadequate. Yet in a Senate Community Affairs hearing, Senator Crowley said that the `CPI adjustment to the pension is effectively a compensation'.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—That is wicked. You have taken that out of context.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—That is exactly what that senator said in the hearings. After the increases by the Labor government—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—That is a lie.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Senator Crowley interjects as she goes out the door, which is not appropriate for a senator to do, that that is a lie. It is interesting that Senator Crowley uses that type of language, which I have slowly but surely become accustomed to, I might add. But her comment, taken direct from Hansard , is that the CPI adjustment to the pension is effectively a compensation.During the committee hearings, I asked ACOSS whether they had done anything to seek compensation for the 13 years of high taxing by the Labor government. They said that they had consistently sought compensation. Mr Michael Raper, the head of ACOSS, in reference to the Labor government years, said:The only way that we—as a country—have been able to retain the level of revenue from consumption taxes is by hiking up the rates, as was done in 1993—under a Labor government—through wholesale sales tax rates being hiked without any compensation. That has contributed to the increased burden on low income earners.Talking about that burden, Mr Raper also happened to say, on the point that I had made about the impact of indirect taxes on the weekly spending power of low income earners:It is obvious and clear that that is the case. Indeed it is our research that demonstrates that that impact has increased from 14 per cent of their weekly spending going on indirect taxes to 23 per cent in the last 10 years of their weekly budgets.That was under the Labor government—without one cent in compensation. Yet Senator Crowley said, `The CPI's enough to cover you,' for an increase of up to 23 per cent of impact. The tax package is offering a four per cent increase, up-front, paid in advance, plus a 1½ per cent increase above the CPI. The Labor opposition have consistently argued, as this Hansard proves, that they believed the CPI increase was adequate. Yet their own figures and the figures of people who traditionally supported them say that their tax increases had that sort of effect.We need to be reminded also of what Labor promised pensioners at the last election: nothing. They promised absolutely nothing other than a retrospective tax on their pre-1985 assets. That was what Labor offered pensioners at the last election: a retrospective capital gains tax on their pre-1985 assets.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—No, we didn't. Tell the truth.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Tell the truth? That was the Labor Party policy and that was exactly the policy that was released prior to the election. Labor promised not a dollar of benefit to pensioners. If senators opposite want to get up and contradict that, you point out in your policy documents where you promised any benefits to pensioners.It was the coalition that promised the 25 per cent benchmark for pensioners, not the Labor Party. Not one cent was given when you were in office. I do not know why you are really worried about it. Senator Chris Evans sums it up all the time. Senator Chris Evans has already said on two occasions, if not more—there are only two that I can find today in this short time—`I am a Labor Party senator and we are voting against it.' He said, just as a bit of advice to witnesses, `I just oppose a GST on everything.' (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.288510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:28851528U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 152 citizens)2885165DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 165 citizens)288546DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 46 citizens)288574310000 8U4The PRESIDENT; Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:That services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners are an integral component of Australia's health care system and should be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package. Preclusion implies a discrimination and could seriously restrict the choice of affordable health care available to Australians. Your Petitioners request that services and goods provided by natural and traditional therapy practitioners be included in the health care exempt (zero rated) category under the Government's proposed Tax Reform Package.The PresidentUNKNOWNThe President(from 19 citizens)Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 724 citizens)2886221M6Allison Sen LynThe petition of the undersigned draws attention to the Senate the regressive nature of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) which increases funding for private school places by taking money out of the public education.Your petitioners call on the Australian Government to:(1) Immediately abolish the EBA.(2) Introduce a fair funding system for public education.(3) Increase funding for public education to reduce class sizes and avoid a national teacher shortage.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 22 citizens)2886333I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: that Australian students oppose any form of VSU on the basis that it is not in the best interests of all students, for the reasons given below: that Voluntary Student Unionism reduces students' representation by weakening student associations and limiting their power to work for students' best interests alongside (and occasionally in conflict with) tertiary institutions and governments; that VSU leads to students benefiting from services which only a section of the student community has paid for and that student unionism should be considered in the same category as taxation, a necessary subsidy for public services; that VSU leads to declines in student facilities and campus infrastructure, disadvantaging not just current but future students, who will suffer from the lower levels of representation and services even more than current students.Your Petitioners request that the Senate: oppose federal VSU legislation and at the same time examine the educational, economic and social ramifications of state VSU legislation on tertiary institution in Victoria and Western Australia.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 33 citizens)Petitions received.Notices28862886Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That—(a) the provisions of the following bills be withdrawn from the committees to which the bills were referred on 2 December 1998: A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998; and(b) further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for a later hour.2886Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Airports Amendment Bill 1999Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.I table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 1999PurposeThe Bill proposes several amendments to the Airports Act 1996 (the Act) directed at implementing Government policy for the competitive provision of services at leased federal airports and facilitating more effective administration of the Act and federal Airport Leases.The proposed amendments encompass:- an extension of time available to airport lessees to have access undertakings to certain airport services approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The currant provisions under section 192 of the Act require approval of access undertakings within 12 months of lease. The proposed changes will give Phase 2 airport lessees sufficient time to settle all relevant matters through consultation with the ACCC. The experience of Phase 1 operators was that there was insufficient time to do so, due to other regulatory burdens (such as preparation of Master Plans and Environment Strategies) in the first year of the Airport Lease. The result was that Phase 1 lessees were unable to have access undertakings approved by the ACCC in the time permitted by the Act. It is hoped to avoid this problem in Phase 2;- amendments to overcome some practical difficulties associated with day-to-day administration of Airport Leases; and- an amendment to protect controlled airspace.Reason for UrgencyThe first of the Phase 2 airports was leased on 28 May 1998. If the Bill is not passed by 28 May 1999 (12 months later), then the opportunity to easily extend the period for approval of access undertakings for Phase 2 airports under section 192 of the Act will pass.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services)ASSISTANCE FOR CARERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999PurposeThe Assistance for Carers Bill 1999 deals with a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers. These were announced as part of the 1997 and 1998 Budgets.Reason for urgencyThe measures are now due for implementation on 1 July 1999. There will need to be significant, and complex, changes to the computer systems in order to implement the measures. To ensure that these changes are in place, and to help minimise the risks associated with changes of this nature, it will be important to offer as stable a micropolicy environment as is possible during the system design and development phases. Passage of the legislation in the 1999 Autumn Sittings would provide a solid basis from which to progress the implementation, and therefore avoid undue problems in delivering financial assistance to carers.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Family and Community Services)BOUNTY (SHIPS) AMENDMENT BILL 1999To amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1989 so as to extend the shipbuilding bounty from 1 July 1999 at a rate of 3% until 31 December 2000, and introduce the Shipbuilding Innovation Scheme (SIS). The purpose of the SIS is to encourage a strengthened focus on product and process research and development and design innovation in the shipbuilding industry. The SIS will provide payment of a benefit calculated at 50% of investment in eligible research and development up to an amount equal to 2% of eligible production costs. This is a five year program costing $40 million in the first four yearsThe current bounty ceases on 30 June 1999 and the amendment Bill needs to be introduced to continue bounty payments from 1 July 1999. Payments under the SIS will commence on 1 July 1999.Failure to pass the Bill in the Autumn sittings could lead to a gap between the cessation of the current bounty scheme (June 1999) and the commencement of the new bounty scheme which will disadvantage the shipbuilding industry in the international market place.Any delay in passing the Bill could have a negative impact on the shipbuilding industry and subject the industry to a double adjustment. Any gap between cessation of the current scheme and introduction of the new scheme will expose the industry to a comparative price disadvantage compared to European competitors. This could result in loss of market share that may not be recoverable.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Industy, Science and Resources)FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Government has decided to implement an accrual based financial framework to replace the existing cash based framework. This will mean the Government will budget, manage and report on an accrual basis from the year 1999-2000. From the May 1999 budget, the appropriation bills will be recast to reflect the new framework.The Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will facilitate the move to the new financial framework by simplifying the legislative and administrative requirements for fund accounting. In essence, the Bill will collapse the present four funds into one Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and replace the requirement for the Minister for Finance to prepare a monthly financial statement of fund transactions with monthly financial statements prepared on an accrual basis. New accrual based systems being introduced by agencies are not designed to perform fund accounting and may need to be modified to do so. This process could be expensive for some agencies, reduce the efficiency of their systems, and would serve no useful purpose apart from ensuring compliance with legislation. Fund accounting information is not required for financial management or reporting and is not used for decision making.If passage of the bill were delayed, there may not be sufficient time for agencies to implement necessary system requirements by 1 July and for development of appropriation bills in a new format for a May Budget.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and Administration)REFERENDUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999PurposeTo amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to allow for expenditure by the Government on public information activities leading up to the referendum on a republic foreshadowed for 1999. The significant nature of this referendum makes amendment of the Act necessary, to ensure that the public is well informed on all relevant issues before being required to vote on the matter.Reasons for urgency requiring introduction and passage in the same sittings Current provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 constrain government expenditure on referendum-related public information activities. The provisions could severely limit the public information programme and assistance for the public presentation of the cases for and against change. Passage of the Bill before the introduction of the Constitutional Alteration (Republic) Bills in the 1999 Winter Sittings is essential to ensure that appropriate public information activities may be carried out to meet the interest created by the introduction of those Bills, and that preparation of the `yes' and `no' campaigns may commence.Effect if the Bill is not dealt with in one sittingsIt would affect the timing of the commencement of the public information programme, constrain the preparation of the `yes' and `no' campaigns, and could delay the referendum timetable.(Circulated by authority of the Special Minister of State) Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on regional employment and unemployment be extended to 29 June 1999.Senator Brown to move, on 24 March 1999:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Newman), no later than 6 pm on 29 March 1999, the report by Captain Wheadon of the visit to Biak in West Papua over the period 11 to 14 July 1998.Committees2888288828882888Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee, pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 4 standing in Senator O'Chee's name for five sitting days after today.Notices28882888Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) media reports on 18 March 1999 stating that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) is taking to Cabinet the concerns of the resources industry regarding the proposed trade-off between accelerated depreciation and a lower corporate tax rate, and (ii) the widespread and serious concerns relating to the negative environmental impact of the Government's proposed new tax system raised by a wide range of medical and environmental groups, industry groups and specialists; and(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Dr Wooldridge) to take the environmental and medical concerns to Cabinet with the same vigour as their economic portfolio colleagues.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination's condemnation of the Government's Wik legislation, particularly in relation to validation, extinguishment of native title, upgrading primary production and the right to negotiate, and (ii) the committee's call for the Government to immediately suspend its native title laws and reopen talks with Australia's indigenous people as a matter of urgency;(b) condemns the Government for its criticism of the committee's findings and its refusal to address the concerns which have been raised; and(c) calls on the Government to immediately take steps to address the concerns raised by the committee by suspending its highly discriminatory Wik legislation and by establishing genuine and open consultation with indigenous people as a matter of urgency.Committees28892889288915:37:002889Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting Senator O'Chee will withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for seven sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Amendment) 1998, made under paragraph 63(1)(b) of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. I seek leave to incorporate a short statement.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On 15 February 1999 I reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with these orders which related to the validity and propriety of the operation of the orders particularly in relation to their effect on agencies established by individual enabling acts. After the committee's last meeting, the chairman met with the minister who has now agreed to amend the orders to meet our concerns. As the correspondence is lengthy, the committee will soon present a full report on this matter to the Senate.The committee is grateful for the personal attention to this matter of the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon Chris Ellison, whose actions demonstrate a commitment to parliamentary propriety.2889288915:37:002889Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting Senator O'Chee will withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in Senator O'Chee's name for five sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 275 and made under the Excise Act 1901; business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5 standing in Senator O'Chee's name for five sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Approval of Forms, made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994; and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 6 standing in Senator O'Chee's name for five sitting days after today for the disallowance of the National Native Title Tribunal Regulations 1998 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No.281 and made under the Native Title Act 1993. I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—On 9 December 1998 Senator O'Chee reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with these instruments which related to inadequate safeguards for official decisions, discretions with no indication whether they are subject to merits review and possible prejudicial retrospectivity. The relevant ministers have now either agreed to amend instruments or provided information which meets our concerns. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.2) Statutory Rules 1998 No. 2752 December 1998Senator the Hon Rod KempAssistant TreasurerParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.2), Statutory Rules 1998 No.275, which set up the administrative framework for claiming payment for the production of naphtha.New subregulation 52AAAA(1), inserted by r.5.1, gives to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy a discretion to approve a plant at which naphtha is produced. The exercise of this discretion could be commercially valuable, but there does not appear to be any provision, either in the regulations or in the enabling Act, for external merits review of the exercise of this discretion.New subregulation 52AAAA(9) permits a Collector of Customs to require an applicant for approval to produce records, or give additional information, within the period specified in the notice. The subregulation does not, however, require the Collector to specify a period which is reasonable in the circumstances. It may be preferable to include that further requirement.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 26003 March 1999Dear SenatorThank you for your letter of 2 December 1998 commenting on Excise Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 2) Statutory Rules 1998 No. 275, which set up the administrative framework for claiming payment for the production of naphtha.Our colleague Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and I agree with the Committee's suggestion that there should be provision for external merits review of the exercise of the ministerial discretion to approve a plant at which naphtha is produced under new subregulation 52AAAA(1).I note the Committee's concern about the lack of a requirement in new subregulation 52AAAA(9) for the Collector to specify a period which is reasonable in the circumstances for the production of records or additional information. I agree that further requirement should be included.Accordingly, I shall propose to the Executive Council at the first practicable opportunity necessary amendments to the regulations to address the Committee's concerns.Thank you for bringing those concerns to my attention.Yours sincerelyROD KEMPInstrument of Approval for Forms, made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 19942 December 1998The Hon Alexander Downer MPMinister for Foreign AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Instrument of Approval of Forms made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 , which grants approval to forms 1RA, 1RP, 2RA, 2RP, 3RA and 3RP.Although the Instrument was made on 12 October 1998, it is stated to have had effect from 4 September 1998. There is no indication that this retrospectivity does not prejudicially affect the rights of a person other than the Commonwealth and may therefore be of no effect.The Committee notes that although the Forms themselves are numbered, the Instrument is not provided with any unique identifying number or symbol.Forms 2RA and 2RP indicate that the signature at the foot of the form is (inter alia) a declaration that the information provided is `true and correct in every material particular', but the other Forms do not include such a statement. There is no indication that the information to be provided by the other forms does not need to be accurate. Also, the forms, especially 2RA and 2RP, do not contain a statement of the consequences of either refusing to provide the information, or of providing information which is not true and correct in every material particular.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairman Senate Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 260019 December 1998Dear BillI refer to your letter of 2 December 1998 regarding the Instrument of Approval of Forms made under subsection 30(2) of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 (the Act), which grants approval to forms 1RA, 1RP, 2RA, 2RP, 3RA and 3RP.I note the Committee's comments on retrospectivity and would like to assure the Committee that retrospective application of this Instrument has not adversely affected the rights of any person. The need for retrospective application of the instrument arose from complications in timing with respect to entry into force of those provisions in the Act enabling the Instruments to be made (7 October), and the need to collect the information necessary to prepare Australia's annual declarations to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, required under the Chemical Weapons Convention, by 31 October.I note that the Explanatory Memorandum prepared for the Instrument should have included words making clear that its retrospective application was not prejudicial to the rights of any person (other than the Commonwealth), and that its omission was an oversight.As is current practice, the Instrument is referenced by date and signature rather than any unique identifying number or symbol. If, however, the Committee considers such a numbering system appropriate, then I will ensure that such arrangements are implemented in the future.The forms approved by the Instrument of 12 October 1998 apply to existing permit holders under the Act. Information provided previously to those persons has noted the existence of penalties for provision of false or misleading information in any document given pursuant to the Act. Nevertheless, the Committee has made a valid point about the need for these provisions to be highlighted on documents such as approved forms, and the forms will be amended to this effect before the next set of reporting obligations falls due.Yours sincerelyAlexander DownerNational Native Title Tribunal Regulations 1998 (No.3) Statutory Rules 1998 No.2817 December 1998The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MPAttorney-GeneralParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the National Native Title Tribunal Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.3), Statutory Rules 1998 No.281, which delete references in the existing Regulations to native title and compensation applications being made to the Tribunal.New paragraph 8(d) of the Principal Regulations, inserted by r.9.1, gives the Registrar a discretion to waive the fee otherwise payable on the lodgement of a native title application. The Explanatory Statement indicates that the Federal Court of Australia Regulations provide a similar waiver of fees for applications filed in that Court. While that statement is accurate so far as it goes, it is misleading in what it omits. The Federal Court of Australia Regulations, while making an identical provision in paragraph 2(4)(c), also provide, in r.2B, for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the exercise of that discretion, among others. There appears to be no similar provision in these Regulations.The Committee would be grateful for your advice as to whether AAT review will be provided for the exercise of this discretion.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCanberra ACT 260016 February 1999Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 7 December 1998 regarding the National Native Title Tribunal Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 3).You have pointed out that there is no provision in the National Native Title Tribunal Regulations which allows the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision to refuse to waive fees. This was an unintentional oversight which occurred when the original Regulations were made in 1993. It is now intended that the Regulations will be amended to provide for such a review. Thank you for drawing my attention to this matter. My Department will keep your Committee informed about the progress of the amendments.Yours sincerelyDARYL WILLIAMSNotices28922892Motion (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 3 sitting days after today.Leave of Absence2892Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hutchins for the period 22 March to 31 March 1999, on account of illness.Committees289228922892Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [1999] , the provisions of the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 and on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] be extended to 21 April 1999.28922892Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 be extended to 31 March 1999.Notices28922892Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 144 (relating to the 50th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet) and no. 147 (human rights abuses in China and Tibet) standing in her name for today, be postponed till 8 sitting days after today.Committees289228922892Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be extended to 30 March 1999.Notices28922892Motion (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 146 (relating to the Government's proposal to reduce the price of diesel) and no. 148 (racial discrimination) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Leave of Absence2892Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—proposed:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Colston for the period 22 March to 31 March 1999, on account of ill health.15:42:002892Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, I want to express my great sympathy for Senator Colston, who is very ill and I am sure has the sympathy of everybody in this chamber. But we are in a unique situation in the Senate where Senator Colston's particular absence is pivotal to the outcome of a number of votes which are coming down the line to do with matters of immense national importance. I only have to flag the GST legislation, legislation to do with the republic, legislation to do with the comprehensive overhaul of environmental laws in this country and a matter before the Senate just today, the potential sale of a further tranche of Telstra shares.I think that under those circumstances the mover of the motion would be very helpful to the Senate were he able to enlighten us a little more as to the illness of Senator Colston. We obviously have no right or prerogative to be trespassing on matters of intense personal importance, but it would be helpful if the Senate were able to hear—I for one would hope to hear this—that Senator Colston is likely to be back here representing his electorate and able to vote at the expiry of the time proposed to be granted.I particularly think it would be helpful to the Senate, and indeed the nation, to know whether Senator Colston has got the fortune to have medical advice that he will be able to attend the Senate before the end of June, because in that time all of these matters are going to be dealt with. As I said, Senator Colston's vote could be pivotal to whether legislation of such importance passes the Senate or otherwise.I did not rise on this matter lightly. I am particularly sympathetic, as I said, to Senator Colston's position, but I am also aware of the responsibility we have to see that the democratic process is carried out in the full. In this peculiar situation which has never arisen before in the Senate, if Senator Colston is returning then we can rest easy with that but, if he is not, some arrangement can be made to at least have an indication of how he would vote, so that we might move—for example, through the good offices of the Senate—to take into account that vote when considering these matters of enormous importance to the nation. We have an ethical situation here which is unprecedented, but I believe it is very important that the matter be raised, that members of the Senate give it a great deal of thought and that we even prevail upon Senator Colston or those who are advising him—and that includes his medical advisers—to enlighten the Senate as to how the future stands regarding not only his health but also these extraordinarily important matters which are coming before the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees289328932893Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman)—by leave—agreed to:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold public hearings during the sitting of the Senate on Monday 22 March 1999 from 8 p.m. and on Tuesday 23 March 1999 from 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. for the purpose of taking evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 .Notices28932893Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 (relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 107 (proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald)) standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees289328932893Motion (by Senator Allison)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the powers of the Commonwealth in environmental protection and ecologically sustainable development in Australia be extended to Thursday 22 April 1999.Notices28932893Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion nos 96, 98 and 99 (relating to uranium mining) and no. 145 (the response by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to an order for the production of documents) standing in her name for today, be postponed till 3 sitting days after today.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Evans for today, relating to the disallowance of the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998, be postponed till 24 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 130 standing in her name for today, relating to International Women's Day, be postponed till 19 April 1999.Committees289428942894Motion (by Senator Woodley)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:(1) That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 May 1999: (a) the circumstances surrounding the decision by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to terminate the Class G airspace trial; and (b) the roles and responsibilities of CASA, Airservices Australia, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and the Department of Transport and Regional Services in the regulation, design and management of airspace.(2) That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 1999: (a) the impact of Airspace 2000 on airspace users, operators and providers, including its safety implications; (b) the application of competition policy to services provided by Airservices Australia; (c) the impact of location specific pricing; and (d) the examination of air safety, with particular reference to cabin air quality in BAE-146 aircraft. Miscellaneous289415:51:002894Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 112 standing in my name for today relating to parliamentary standards or codes of conduct be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.28943M6MURRAYSenator MURRAY—Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lees 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. 112.I am obliged to move this motion, because I have run out of patience. Since I first introduced this motion nearly a month ago, three times the Labor Party have asked me to delay the motion while considering their position. I have done that three times and I think it is time for the Labor Party now to vote on this matter.The recent controversy surrounding the travel expenses of a minister and the concurrent watering down of Mr Howard's ministerial code of conduct demonstrate yet again the pitfalls of giving a watchdog role to those who are supposed to be the watched. When the Prime Minister's ministerial conduct guidelines were introduced in 1996, largely speaking they were greeted with acclaim. They appeared to be born out of good intentions and to meet an expressed public need. But the deficiencies in the Prime Minister's code of conduct were soon to become dramatically apparent. This should not have come as a surprise to anyone: the guidelines were devised, administered, policed and informed by the Prime Minister, who is both boss and colleague to those under scrutiny and therefore not sufficiently at arm's length from the matters at hand. There were no independent review procedures, no audit procedures, no management procedures, and consequently the Prime Minister was visited with the troubles of numerous ministers and parliamentary secretaries resigning.The recent watering down of the code effectively allows office holders to continue to decide policy in areas in which their private interests and public duty conflict. A minister knows that shares that he or she holds via a blind trust or via an adult child will either benefit or suffer from decisions that he or she may make in office. There is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest in such a case, and this is unacceptable in what should be an era of openness and accountability in public office.The solution to this drawn out and unnecessary saga is that the government recognise the mess they are in with this guidelines issue, recognise the problems that exist and recognise that the public are sick and tired of standards and rules that are inadequate and often not enforced. I have given notice in the Senate of my motion No. 112, that there be a working party to produce guidelines which all parties would agree were appropriate for the parliament. An attempt of mine last year along similar lines was rejected by the government and by Labor. Again I am asking, in view of the latest events, for the government to appoint a joint committee with all parties represented to review cabinet and parliamentary guidelines and codes of conduct and to make recommendations in the short term.The Democrats believe that this review should be required to consider the appointment of an independent commissioner for parliamentary ethics and standards. Of course, it would be open to the committee to not so recommend, but at least it should be part of their terms of reference. Such an office exists in the Canadian parliament. The Ethics Counsellor there, Mr Howard Wilson, recently visited Australia and delivered an address at Parliament House, Queensland, on 12 February 1999. In his speech, Mr Wilson, who is a public servant and not a politician, set out the principles of the system that applies in the Canadian parliament. The first is:Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.This principle expressly acknowledges that ethical behaviour—or the lack thereof—by politicians is intricately tied up with public confidence in the system of government. The second principle gives content to the first:Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.This is a very important point. Politicians must recognise that it is the spirit of a code of conduct as well as its content that should guide their behaviour. It is no good pointing to how the letter of the law has been obeyed if, in a particular circumstance, the intent of that law has been circumvented. The third principle leaves no room for ambiguity:On appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising but if such a conflict does arise between the private interest of a public office holder and the official duties and responsibilities of that public office holder, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.It is crystal clear that the Prime Minister's watered-down guidelines fail this principle abysmally. There is no need for any further delay in examining the introduction of an independent official in the federal parliament to oversee a set of accountability principles similar to those outlined above; all that is required is that the Labor Party in the Senate convert their lively rhetoric on this issue into action. (Time expired)15:56:002895Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders, but equally believe that this matter deserves more than just cursory opposition. I would like to explain the position of the opposition in relation to our voting on the motion from Senator Murray. The truth of the matter is that we had an earlier working party appointed on the initiative of Bob Hawke, who I think was responding to a request from the then member for North Sydney, Mr Mack, back in July 1991. It was revamped on a motion from the Australian Democrats in 1992. In fact that group did produce two draft codes of conduct, as Senator Murray and others might be aware: one for ministers and another for members and senators. The codes were finalised in about the middle of 1995. There was even what might best be described as some desultory debate in the Senate at that time, but the codes were never formally adopted.Of course, Senator Murray's motion does not actually call for a working party to draft a code, but it does ask us to examine the appropriateness of existing codes and the possible establishment of an independent commission or parliamentary committee. It is pretty clear that a multiparty working group is not the most effective way for us to tackle this problem, and there is now a fair amount of experience that points to that being the case. For the new working group to do any better than the previous efforts that we have seen would require a major commitment on the part of all the participants—and that is the problem.We have every reason to doubt the commitment of the government on this issue. I am surprised that Senator Murray would seek to progress a motion that calls on the Prime Minister to take this course of action. Mr Howard and his government really have form on codes of conduct. Mr Howard is the Prime Minister who came into office in 1996 and, with great fanfare, tabled in both houses of the Commonwealth parliament a code of ministerial conduct, and who then proceeded to completely ignore it for the whole of the life of the first term of his government. And then, after the re-election of the Howard government in 1998, he came into the parliament—but, of course, without any fanfare this time, not on the white charger and claiming to raise standards of ministerial responsibility and accountability—and this time sneakily had a revised code, a watered-down and diluted code, tabled in the House of Representatives.Mr Howard is not fair dinkum about codes of conduct. As far as the opposition is concerned, we are not going to participate in an exercise when we know full well that the Liberal Party and the National Party are not serious about maintaining standards of ministerial accountability. I think the arguments on this are very strong; I think the case is very clear. The Howard government has weakened all the previous standards of ministerial responsibility. They have weakened their own code of conduct. Senator Murray has asked us and other political parties to participate in some highly farcical process to see if we can re-engage the government. They have got form, they have shown their true colours, and we are not going to be part of this facade.So, Senator Murray, it is not because of our lack of commitment to proper processes in government, a code of conduct and proper ministerial behaviour and accountability. But this is not the way to do it, Senator Murray. Mr Howard has shown that he is not fair dinkum about this process. Don't be conned by what the Liberals are doing. (Time expired)16:01:002896Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam Deputy President, Senator Murray and I have a different approach to these matters because I believe the most appropriate way of enforcing behaviour in parliament from a personal and ethical point of view comes through transparency. The concentration should be on making all aspects of parliamentary life as transparent as possible, with the obvious reservations that there are some areas that do remain private. Therefore, the Labor Party—right through the 1980s and into the 1990s—battled to have pecuniary interest declared within this chamber, and it took a long, long while for that to occur. The opposition to it was not necessarily opposition outright but on the technicalities of it and by the use of extended debate, meaning you could never bring these things to fruition.But when you look at some of the big issues that have arisen as to probity on both sides—the attack of the Liberal Party on a former prime minister or an attack by this side of the chamber on an existing minister—it can be seen they came from information provided in a pecuniary interest form or through checking on the lack of information on that form. It also came from the provision—on which the Senate led the way—of all MPs' entitlements and how they were put to use. Many of the problems that have regrettably occurred have come from that sort of information, so I argue for maximum transparency to bring about proper behaviour.Senator Murray, this sort of probity and discipline comes from within, not from without. It is not forced from the outside; it should come from within if you expect proper standards of behaviour. Senator Murray would go on and say that he wants a parliamentary commissioner. I just wonder who you could appoint to that particular position. Who appoints them? Does the parliament appoint them? Does the government appoint them? Do the presiding officers appoint them? And what makes them so great? It all then comes to subjective judgment by that person as to what is an appropriate code of behaviour. I think there are judges on our codes of behaviour. There are nine million voters out there and, when we misbehave, they are the ones that should put those who misbehave out to pasture. Indeed, in a party system what tends to happen is that the party puts them out before the electorate gets the chance.I was a member of the working party set up in 1991. I went to about two meetings as I regarded the procedures as farcical, frankly. I looked at a couple of the characters in the room and thought, `I'm not going to be lectured on ethics by them for a start.' They were never really serious about developing a serious code of conduct. It was continually watered down, and that is what will happen in this process—it will get to a point at which it will become meaningless.The one thing that has lifted standards in this place and in the other place is the fact that some that have misused their entitlements have been exposed. Maybe that exposure should have occurred a lot earlier, but it did not. But now that it has occurred, I detect an enormous improvement in behavioural standards in both chambers in terms of the use or abuse of entitlements and in the way people organise their political lives. It was not through some parliamentary commissioner; it was not through some code of conduct—frankly, it was through some fairly ruthless exposure.So what it eventually comes to is that you want us to suspend standing orders basically to vote on a proposition that in the end will be a very subjective one. In the end what you are saying is that you want to put someone else out there to judge the standards of behaviour of politicians. I doubt that such a person exists that could do it well, I doubt that a code could be written that will not be subjectively interpreted, so, frankly, I would leave it to the electors to get rid of those who they do not think meet the proper standards. But again, those standards will be met not with a gun at the head but coming from the heart. I think we will see from the events coming out of 1997 a big improvement in the behaviour of politicians. So, even if you do suspend standing orders today, I suspect your motion will do nothing more than provide you with an avenue for grandstanding—something you would probably resist but which some of your colleagues may not.Question resolved in the negative.Committees2897289728972897Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 75th report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Execution of search warrants in senators' offices .Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—by leave—I move:That the recommendation contained in paragraph 1.14 of the 75th report of the Committee of Privileges be adopted.The present report is in effect an advisory report. Like the committee's 70th report on proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, it derives from a request from another committee, in this case the Senate Procedure Committee.On 1 December 1998, Senator Sue West, Deputy President of the Senate, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, asked the Commit tee of Privileges to consider the matter of the execution of search warrants in senators' offices and the suggestion that the presiding officers seek agreement with the Attorney-General to govern the execution of search warrants.This report sets out the background of the matter with particular reference to the guidelines between the Law Council of Australia and the Federal Police in respect of lawyers' premises. The committee has concluded that discussions would be appropriate between the presiding officers and the Attorney-General with a view to establishing comparable guidelines for the execution of search warrants in offices of members of the parliament. The committee's conclusion is reflected in the recommendation which we now ask the Senate to adopt.The committee has not dealt in the present report with the scope of parliamentary privilege. It reiterates its previous undertakings, given first in its 67th report, that when current legal proceedings have concluded it will seek from the Senate a general reference on that matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees28982898289816:08:002898MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the loss of HMAS Sydney , together with submissions, Hansard record of proceedings and minutes.Ordered that the report be printed.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I have great pleasure today in presenting this report. HMAS Sydney was lost off the coast of Western Australia on the evening of 19-20 November 1941, with all her crew, following an engagement with the German raider Kormoran . All 645 of Sydney 's crew were lost. The final resting place of both ships remains a mystery to this day.The loss of HMAS Sydney was devastating. It was a shock to the Australia of 1941, bringing home to everyone just how close the war was and how much of a threat Australia was facing. It was a very great shock to the families of those who were serving on HMAS Sydney, and it continues through to this day to be the cause of great sadness amongst remaining family members. In conducting this inquiry, the committee was particularly conscious of those family members and their desire to know what happened that night.It is very unfortunate that an inquiry in relation to this matter was not held sooner. After the lapse of so much time, many people who may have been able to shed light on the events of November 1941 are either dead or infirm. Unfortunately, it does not appear that a full inquiry was held immediately after the loss of Sydney or, indeed, in the postwar years when much information might still have been obtained. However, we need to guard against judging too harshly actions taken in 1941—58 years ago—against the same standards of transparency and openness of government which we regard as the norm today. While it is easy to be critical of actions taken at that time, we do well to remember that not only were standards different but our nation was then at war. With the benefit of hindsight, though, the committee is of the view that the situation might have been handled better at that time. The committee believes that it was in part the fact that the subject was not addressed in a timely manner that speculation and theorising have been allowed to fill the information void.Everyone loves a good mystery, and almost everyone seems to have their own theory about what happened to Sydney. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the only accounts of the engagement are from the German survivors, and because it was, and still is, inconceivable to many that the pride of the Australian Navy could be defeated, many people have sought explanations for the loss in elaborate conspiracy theories. The most common of these is the theory that a Japanese submarine sank Sydney. Further, there is also a belief in some quarters that there were survivors from Sydney but that they were shot in the water afterwards, either by the Japanese submarine or by the German survivors. The committee found no evidence of the involvement of a third party in the engagement or subsequently. The committee believes those who continue to argue this line have caused unnecessary distress and grief to the families.The former Minister for Defence, when referring the inquiry to the committee in 1997, asked us to look specifically at a number of matters. The report has addressed each of these matters, as well as commenting more generally on the circumstances of the sinking of the Sydney. We made a conscious decision, however, to avoid duplicating the work of historians who have written on the subject. The committee therefore limited its comments and conclusions to those matters on which it took direct evidence and felt able to comment.One of those matters concerns the question of the unknown sailor whose body was found in a carley float off Christmas Island on or about 6 February 1942. The body was a white male. There were no personal effects or identifying items on the body to give any clue to his identity. The body was buried in a grave in the old European cemetery on Christmas Island with military honours. If an inquest was held, no record has survived. An inquiry by Navy in the postwar years concluded that the body was not from the Sydney. However, many have argued since that time that the Sydney was the only possible source of the float and its occupant.The committee considered evidence on the oceanographic conditions that would have affected a carley float adrift in the Indian Ocean, whether there were other ships that the carley float may have come from and the physical characteristics of the float itself. In relation to the latter, we relied on contemporary accounts as the actual float has probably been destroyed. The committee concluded that, on the balance of probability, the body and the carley float found off Christmas Island in February 1942 were most likely from HMAS Sydney.A number of relatives of those lost on Sydney have long been calling for the body to be exhumed and DNA testing undertaken in an attempt to identify the body. Finding the exact location of the grave is difficult as no records giving its exact location have been kept. The committee believes an attempt should be made to locate the grave. Furthermore, we believe that DNA testing should be undertaken to try to resolve, once and for all, the identity of the body. The committee acknowledges that the chance of a positive identification is remote, but it would be a sign to many of the families involved that the government was prepared to do all it could in this matter.The report tabled today contains 18 recommendations, including: that the Australian government reviews the operations of the Archives Act 1983 in regard to World War II material, to provide full public access to all material; that a search be undertaken to locate the final resting place of Sydney, following some further work in defining the search area; that the Commonwealth government should match public donations to the HMAS Sydney Foundation Trust for this purpose on a dollar for dollar basis, up to a total of $2 million; the establishment of a research grant scheme in the name of HMAS Sydney; and the construction of a memorial at Fremantle.The committee found no convincing evidence of third party involvement or a conspiracy on the part of the RAN, the admiralty or the Australian government, then or now, to keep the truth from the Australian public. The committee is well aware that its report will not put an end to the debate over Sydney, and indeed welcomes the continuing effort by researchers in this field.However, the committee was very disappointed about the level of acrimony that was apparent among a number of groups and individuals, each supporting particular theories. As we have said in the report, no one group `owns' the Sydney, or has a monopoly on truth. We hope that future research will rise above the personal acrimony and suspi cion that has marred so much of the debate so far.The inquiry created a lot of public interest, and I would like to thank all of the people who took the time to write submissions, to appear at the public hearings or to simply make contact with the secretariat. The degree of interest in and the involvement of the community in an inquiry of this nature was quite remarkable, and all contributions were gratefully accepted.I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Defence Subcommittee of this parliament and also the 38th Parliament, and particularly the secretary of the committee, Joanne Towner, and her staff. I also pay a special tribute to three members who are no longer in the parliament—the former member for Fowler, the former member for Riverina and the former member for Groom—who all took a great interest in this inquiry. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Peter Dennis, who was historical adviser to the committee during this inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate.16:17:002900Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I too would like to make some comments on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. As the committee's report has stated, since the loss of HMAS Sydney on 19 November 1941, three weeks before the incredible event of Pearl Harbour and with German forces 1,500 miles from home looking unbeatable at the doors of Moscow, the debate on the exact nature of the engagement and its aftermath has intensified rather than abated. These were incredible times and the subsequent debate must acknowledge that. In conducting our inquiry, we made a conscious effort not to duplicate the work of historians, and therefore not to fuel the intense feelings held by many people who have an abiding interest in this mystery.The committee is aware that the report will not put an end to much of the wider speculation that surrounds this matter and will forever surround it. This was the pride of the fleet, sunk without warning and without real explanation. As somebody who has taken an interest in the Sydney debate for a long time before joining the Senate, I found the inquiry absolutely fascinating. I have to agree with the author Tom Frame's conclusion in his book HMAS Sydney: loss and controversy:In the case of Sydney we will never know how it really was. Those with an interest in this proud Australian ship must learn to live with the unknown, and the unknowable.However, I believe we can go a little further. We can conclude that HMAS Sydney , for reasons that will never be proved beyond reasonable doubt, came too close to Kormoran , was savagely attacked and mortally wounded, but that she fought valiantly to the end. This was a cruiser that had a welltrained crew and a record in the Mediterranean in 1940 against the Italian fleet that stands the test of time.I have a couple of final comments to make. Firstly, the committee received 201 submissions and 208 supplementary submissions. The level of interest shown some 58 years after the event shows the pain still existing in the Australian community. For those people who lost their loved ones, that pain will be with them forever. I hope that some of that pain will be softened a little by our recommendations.Secondly, there has been much speculation over time about the German subterfuge in connection with why Sydney came so close. As I have said, we will never know the answer. While it is undeniably a truism that history is written by the victors, the German account of the events of 19 November 1941 has never substantially altered since that time. Such a length of time does tend to increase the credibility of their account. That is my view and that is probably the view of most observers.Bearing in mind that victors write history, I acknowledge that, when the Kormoran was at battle stations, perhaps only eight or 10 of her crew would have been on the bridge. Therefore, they would have been the only people that would have known what happened on that afternoon. One disappointment I feel was our inability to interview any surviving Kormoran crewmen. There are two reasons for that. One is that they are getting very old and the second is that those that survived feel this matter has been drawn out for too long and that their views have not been believed anyway.I join with Senator MacGibbon in thanking the committee, and especially Joanne Towner, the secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, who did a terrific job in producing this report. I hope the government will accept our recommendations. I especially hope that new memorials can be erected in Perth and Sydney and that a very important service commemoration can be held as planned in 2001. I hope that that service and those memorials will in some way help those who are left to find some peace after all this time. My final advice to them is that their loved ones died in an Australian warship that fought valiantly to the end.16:22:002901Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Mr Acting Deputy President, this has been one of the most extraordinary inquiries by a joint committee that has taken place in the parliament. Many people were surprised at the level of public interest in what some would consider was simply a historical incident, that is, the sinking of the HMAS Sydney . Before I was elected to the Senate, or while I was a senator-elect and was still working as a receptionist in a veterinary clinic part time while studying at university, I recall having people come to me at the counter with their dog and cat saying, `By the way, I would like to talk to you about the HMAS Sydney .' This was back in 1993.It is an issue of most extraordinary interest that in some cases has grabbed people to the extent that they have spent their life's work on the issues involved in trying to find evidence. Many people indicated that they had come upon the information by accident, in doing something else, and in finding out by chance. Some of the people involved had started as a result of the Port Gregory sightings.Since I have lost my seat on this committee, I no longer have the privilege of even being given the reports. I was involved with the inquiry, although I am not a member for Fowler, Riverina or Groom. However, I think it will be necessary for the wider community to have a look at the report. I think there will be responses to this. I was disappointed to hear Senator MacGibbon talk about the unnecessary stress caused by those who have different theories on how HMAS Sydney was sunk. In my opinion, the greatest stress—and it was reported to me on occasion after occasion during the lead-up to the inquiry, while the inquiry was taking place and I was still on the committee—was caused by the Department of Defence and the lack of cooperation and ability to have decent responses to questions.Even the committee discovered something as simple as: was it possible that the carley float that was washed up on Christmas Island was associated with HMAS Sydney? We had the Defence witnesses arguing strongly that this could not possibly have happened. Clearly, they had not looked at or considered, or even taken seriously, the evidence that was around or available in relation to the possibilities. Even something as basic as whether or not we could look further at that evidence was stonewalled by people who have not been particularly helpful to the relatives of people who were on HMAS Sydney.I am sorry to continue that note of controversy. I do not believe that those people who have various theories have caused the main stress. I think it is unfortunate that that is the message that is coming out, that those people who are trying to find the truth are the ones causing stress. I think it is unfortunate that we are having to look at very roundabout ways of finding information. Quite clearly, the people who should have known, and whose records should be able to tell us, have not been helpful from the day the incident took place.Mr Acting Deputy President, I know other people wish to speak on this document. I hope that the last person to speak will ask that the debate on this document be adjourned because, although personally I have had so many other issues to deal with, it is an issue which has, as I say, been of great interest, especially in my state of Western Australia. The interest has been from relatives, friends, journalists and simply from other people who, in the process of looking at a story, have become engrossed. I do not think this report, unfortunately, will put an end to the mystery and I certainly do not think that the HMAS Sydney Foundation Trust is necessarily going to put an end to the mystery either. It might put an end to the $2 million but I certainly do not think it will put an end to the mystery. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees29022902290216:26:002902McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and external territories entitled Island to Islands: Communications with Australia's external territories , together with submissions, Hansard records of proceedings and minutes.Ordered that the report be printed.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The inquiry highlighted the importance and difficulties of communications to and within Australia's External Territories—Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Antarctic Territories. The External Territories are very isolated and they have very small populations. These are not unfamiliar problems for Australians. Many parts of Australia experience isolation but, for the External Territories, the distance is compounded by the intervening oceans. That so few people live in these communities creates additional problems in the delivery of services. Small, distant markets are not often economic and the provision of the latest, rapidly changing and expensive technology can be problematic.The most significant new technology, and one that is difficult to access in the External Territories, is the Internet. The availability and the cost of the Internet were raised repeatedly during the inquiry. The Internet has the potential to be most valuable for these Territories in addressing their isolation. It offers a means to improve the delivery of health and education, to improve business opportunities, and thereby provide much needed employment. The Internet can overcome the slowness of transport and mail services.The committee recommends the development of appropriate standards for satellite bandwidth capacity which is available to people in the External Territories, so that these communities can reliably access quality broadcast and Internet services. Further, the committee endorses the Government's policy to include the provision of an Internet data line capacity of at least 64 kbps as part of the Universal Service Obligation to the External Territories,The inquiry was not in a position lo undertake any detailed analysis of the comparative costs of Internet provision versus the cost of `traditional' health and education services or the impact of the Internet on business and employment. However, the committee believe this is a matter that the Government should investigate and that the Government should draw up strategic plans for the development of Internet services in the Territories.The issue of transport, especially into the Indian Ocean Territories, was the second issue of importance raised with the Committee. Transport services were inadequate and have had distressing effects on the inhabitants of the Islands. Poor transport links affected every area of life—mail, business, tourism, health and education. The committee recommends that the new contract, to be negotiated in 1999, for airline services to the Indian Ocean Territories accommodate the freight, postal and tourism needs of the Territories by providing a sufficient increase in the capacity over the present arrangements.Many complaints were made about the mail services into all the Territories. Primarily these related to the off-loading of vital mail and supplies which related to the inadequate transport systems. The committee recommends that improved and more reliable airmail services be provided for Norfolk Island, Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.With the change from analogue to digital broadcasting, there is a requirement for new transmission and decoding equipment. Questions were raised over the adequacy (or inadequacy) of the footprint of the satellites serving the Indian Ocean Territories, where reception was highly affected by the weather. The committee recommends a review of the quality of broadcast services in the Indian Ocean Territories in mid 1999 after the transition to digital satellites is completed.Complaints were received on the cost of telephone calls. On Norfolk Island, this is a revenue-raising exercise. In the Indian Ocean Territories the highest STD rate applies. This affects the cost of data services and compounds the problem of slow speeds, which raises the cost of Internet and fax systems.None of the Islands had solved the problem of a lack of a mobile phone service on the Islands. Norfolk Island had deferred the decision about introducing mobile phones} because of unexpected costs associated with the exchange. On Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Island, analogue mobile phones operated, but they had a limited life and there was no intention to replace the analogue system with a digital one as, according to Telstra, the customer base was too small. The committee concluded that many of the problems for the External Territories resulted from their small and isolated communities.The committee recommends a report be made by November 1999, on the progress of the Telstra upgrade of telecommunications facilities on the Indian Ocean Territories with particular reference to telecommunications service accessibility, quality, reliability and cost. The committee also recommends that all the External Territories have access to toll-free numbers, call-centre operator services and other such regular, on-line, mainland business services. The committee recommends the possible development of electronic banking/EFTPOS facilities on Cocos (Keeling) Islands.Further, the committee recommends that in 1999, the twentieth year of its operation, the Government initiate a review of the Norfolk Island Act with particular reference to the anomalies that arise as a result of the Act as far as the citizens of Norfolk Island are concerned.The committee concluded that, in relation to many communications services into the External Territories, there remain significant gaps. It is essential that the funds designed to overcome market failure in other remote parts of Australia be made available in these Territories and that careful strategic planning for the development of modern communications systems in these Territories be put in place.I would like to thank our secretariat staff, who worked very hard for the committee and, in particular, Margaret Swieringa, who provided a tremendous amount of support to this communications inquiry.I would like to particularly thank all the members of the committee for their contributions to the hearings and for this report. I believe the cooperative, bipartisan way in which the members from both chambers of the Parliament have approached the work on this parliamentary committee has shown how a parliamentary committee can work at its best. I commend the report to the Senate.16:27:002903Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I would like to speak briefly on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled Island to Islands: Communications with Australia's external territories. The report deals with a raft of issues and looks at various different mediums through which communications and services are delivered. I would like to specifically address the issue of the cost of telecommunications services which was raised in numerous points throughout the report.Of course, when I refer to the cost of telecommunications services, I am not just referring to the charge for a local call—I am referring to two issues. Firstly, people in external territories and, indeed, the remoter parts of mainland Australia are forced to pay higher phone charges because of their geographical location, just to engage in basic communications with others using a standard telephone. Page 101 of this report points out that, for people living in the Australian territories in the Indian Ocean, all calls to mainland Australia are charged at the highest STD rate of 28c per minute. The problems for people living in the external territories and in remote parts of mainland Australia are very similar in that they are having to pay timed rates to access basic services. Carriers charge for telephone calls on the basis of calling zones. A call to another subscriber in the same zone or an adjacent zone is a local untimed call. A call to someone who is not in the same or an adjacent zone is an STD call. The whole issue of call zones needs to be reviewed so that some equity is afforded to people in remote areas when it comes to telecommunications charges.Secondly, the high prices that those people must pay for so-called premium services and the prices that they pay are not necessarily higher than those that I would pay to obtain those services in urban areas, but the point is that those premium services are arguably of necessity to those people and, at the very least, they are services which will help to reduce the disparity that exists in access to information between people living in cities and those in rural and remote parts. Probably the best example of this is ISDN, that is, the digital data capability which allows high speed access to the Internet. ISDN is regarded as a premium service, and it is priced accordingly.In the cities, ISDN is not necessary for residential access to the Internet, because our telephone service lines are of sufficient quality that they can handle relatively fast data transfer. I can connect a modem to my standard telephone line, dial my Internet service provider and download information from the Internet at a reasonable speed, without having to subscribe to ISDN. As an urban dweller, I pay only 25c for a local call and can be connected for as long as I want for that price. But, as this report makes very clear, people in remote communities do not have the option of using their standard telephone line to connect to the Internet, because the line will only handle data transferred at a rate of about one-sixteenth of the speed that we can get in the cities, and that is simply too slow. Consequently, those people have two options: either they do not access the Internet or they bear the substantial charges which are imposed for ISDN access.The conclusion section of the report correctly reminds us of the government's commitment to include an ISDN equivalent service as part of the universal service obligation so that all Australians will have the option of taking up that service. The problem is that, at present, that service is simply not affordable for the average residential Internet user and the government appears unwilling to set the price of ISDN at an affordable level.The basic charges for ISDN services are set out on page 104 of the report. The connection fee is $295, the equipment cost is $650, the annual access charge is $740 per year, and the usage charges range from 7c to 34c per minute. So a person living in a remote area who wants to regularly access the Internet, let us say, for an hour a day will be looking at paying at least a couple of thousand dollars a year just for the line, and that ignores the charges imposed by the Internet service provider. That simply is not affordable.The government needs to address the affordability issue, in the view of the Democrats. The additional cost is directly imposed on those in the external territories and other remote areas because, as I mentioned previ ously, people in the cities have a standard telephone service which is able to cope with high speed data transfer, so they can avoid having to pay for ISDN. People in the country and in remote areas do not have that basic high standard and so they are forced to pay ISDN rates if they want to access all of the benefits that the Internet can deliver.16:32:002904Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The report Island to Islands: Communications with Australia's external territories is an important one and involves issues which are absolutely essential to the people living in Australia's external territories. What is seldom remembered is that Australia's external territories do not generally have representation of their own. Christmas Island is administered through the Northern Territory, even though it is closer to Western Australia, but it does not have a vote in either the Northern Territory or the Western Australian parliament. Ironically, it takes specific parliamentary inquiries to bring to the fore some of these issues which might normally be handled through representations to state parliamentarians.Here we have a situation where basic communication needs might come out by way of recommendations—and I guess time will tell whether all 23 of these recommendations deal adequately with the needs of Australia's external territories. In the case of Christmas Island, there is a recommendation that there be at least one return airmail service a week. That does not necessarily happen. There are times when Christmas Island does not know whether it has a return airmail service—and I have to declare an interest here; I like Christmas Island very much and I have a small property there.The people of Christmas Island do not know how they can plan their future. People cannot plan for communications. The people of Christmas Island do not know whether or not there will be an ability for people to visit the island in the future. So the issue of whether or not they have a return airmail service is vital—and it is not as obvious as it may look to other people. There is not a guaranteed air service from Australia—in this case Western Australia—to Christmas Island and many people are using what seems to be an easier way, which is to use a connecting service from other parts of South-East Asia. This can be a problem when there are political problems within those other countries or when, for example, in the lead-up to an election, say, in Indonesia, a connection to a casino on Christmas Island might be an embarrassment. I believe the Australian government has an obligation to make sure these basic issues of communication are being met and that the people have a say.Areas like Christmas Island have an analog mobile phone system—and this was recently established—because digital will not work in Christmas Island. This is going to be a very interesting situation for this and other places when the analog system no longer exists on mainland Western Australia. What will happen when people do not have those phones that they can use in Western Australia, and people are moving backwards and forwards to Christmas Island and to other external territories where digital systems do not work? Do we suddenly require all Christmas Islanders to use satellite phones? What happens to the communication when the legislation changes to stop the analog system from operating? It is all very well to say, `We will deal with this in time,' but these people have a mobile system that may work reasonably well and they are looking at a future where they do not know what will be happening.I think there are some issues here that have not got a guernsey, and I will take time to look at them and also pass them on to people on Christmas Island and get their response. There is someone speaking after me, and I hope they will seek leave to continue their remarks so that this item remains on the agenda for a later discussion, once we have had a chance to look through the report.16:37:002905Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The report Island to Islands: Communications with Australia's external territories looks at the communications with Australia's external territories. It was commissioned on 5 March 1998, so the inquiry commenced before I had the honour of taking up my position in the Senate, although I was able to participate in a trip to Christmas and Cocos islands and I attended a number of hearings in Canberra. The report looks at the adequacy of the communications to our external territories and the issue of future needs. This is an important report, particular from my perspective, because the Northern Territory federal electorate involves two of these external territories. The report highlights some of the communications problems faced by Australians living in Australia's external territories.It is quite important to note—and I think the first paragraph of the conclusion sums it up—that these territories are long distances off the mainland. They are islands separated by great oceans, they have a small population by comparison and they are particularly remote, so it is very easy for us to not pay the due attention that we would normally pay to people who live on the mainland, certainly in mainland cities. I particularly draw attention to the first paragraph of the conclusion, which makes a very good statement about the problems facing these Australians.While there are significant opportunities for new technologies to reduce the isolation of the Australians living in our external territories, these are dependent on their being able to access that technology. It is ironic that this report has been tabled in the Senate in the same week that we will be debating the government's plans for the further sale of Telstra, because there are lots of implications in here about the future requirements of communications for people in these territories.The RTIF fund of $250 million was established to improve the quality of Australia's telecommunications services and enhance employment opportunities in regional areas as a result of the initial one-third sale of Telstra. Part of the conclusion, at paragraph 42, states:It would appear that remote communities on the Australian mainland experience many of the communications difficulties enunciated by those in the external territories.It goes on to say:The remote mainland communities have an advantage over the external territories in that they were assured access to the RTIF funds.Perhaps what we did not know—it is highlighted in this report and should be drawn to the Senate's attention, particularly this week—is that the RTIF funds do not apply to the external territories. We need to ask ourselves why.Australians living in the external territories deserve access to the same levels of telecommunications as other Australians. There was an announcement in July 1998 of a special allocation of $20 million to meet the telecommunications needs of remote and isolated communities, including Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk islands and the Antarctic territories. But we now know that this special allocation is dependent on the further sale of Telstra.What the federal government is saying to people in the remote and external territories of our country is, `We will improve your communications in the short term by reducing the level of telecommunications provided by Telstra by privatising it.' Why should improved telecommunications for people in Australia's external territories depend on the further sale and privatisation of Telstra, which will lead to a reduced level of services?The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the telecommunications infrastructure that we have in this country is available for all Australians, whether they live in remote communities of the Northern Territory or whether they live in the external territories of Christmas, Cocos or Norfolk islands. The report has rightly highlighted the importance of communications for the economic development of Australia's external territories, and it also highlights that telecommunications carriers are reluctant to provide services to all Australians if it is not cost effective to do so. As we know, the underlying principle of the USO—the universal service obligation—is that, no matter where Australians live or conduct business, all Australians should have reasonable access to a basic telephone service.Before I conclude, I want to make a few comments that specifically affect my constituents living in Christmas and Cocos islands. In relation to telephones and faxes, we have heard from Senator Margetts that all calls to the mainland are made at the highest STD rate and therefore are extremely expensive. The data and fax transmission rates are slow and Christmas Island has only an analog mobile service which, as my colleague alluded to, will make for an interesting development towards the end of this year when that service will be phased out on the mainland.As the report highlights, the Internet offers the potential to fill gaps in health and education services and to create business opportunities. However, current services to Christmas Island and Cocos Island are slow and expensive. The ISDN capacity will not be available, even with the recabling of the island, because of deficiencies in the satellite link to the mainland. With regard to transport, the passenger transport services to Christmas and Cocos islands are expensive, inefficient and are booked out far in advance. The current air service is inadequate and affects all aspects of life, including postal services, business, tourism and health services, for residents in the Indian Ocean territories,Probably the two areas that stood out the most in the time that I spent there were in relation to the mail. The mail services to Christmas and Cocos islands are constrained considerably by the availability and capacity of flights to the islands. This is highlighted in chapter 7 of the report, commencing with paragraph 7.3, which talks about the postal services. The mail is often constrained by the fact that there is one flight to the islands a week which is underwritten by the Commonwealth. There is sometimes another service that flies between Christmas Island and Jakarta. But, predominantly, the government needs to guarantee that the post on and off the islands is such that the aircraft have the capacity to carry the mail that has been consigned.Generally, by the time you look at medical supplies, fruit and vegetables, the only mail guaranteed to get on and off the islands is express post. Even then, when you may pay the higher price, mail is not considered a priority item. The air courier services are expensive and prohibitive. Impact on the community in terms of business, education and employment is immense. It even affects the telephone bills. We had a situation where people were receiving the second notice of their telephone bill before their first notice, or their telephones were being disconnected before they had received their bills.Weekend papers come the following Thursday and cost anywhere between $4.50 and $15 a paper compared with $1.40 in Perth, where they come from. Even, for example, Australia Post has special Christmas and Cocos Island stamps that people collect. But there is no recompense to the islands for those kinds of postage sales.In relation to broadcasting, the Indian Ocean territories are on the edge of the satellite footprint providing broadcasting and telecommunications services and they are subject to interference, limited in range and uneven in quality. The external territories are not included in the funding allocation for the RTIF scheme, which would make money available to buy further decoders. Access to mainland educational programs such as the Westlink service, an educational service run by the Western Australian government, is limited.I urge the government, particularly the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, to read this report. It does provide a valuable insight into the frustration and difficulties these people experience when it comes to communications. I ask the government to implement the recommendations contained in this report as soon as possible.16:47:002907Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and external territories, Island to Islands: Communications to and within Australia's external territories . Australia's external territories, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Antarctic territories, are in many respects our forgotten territories. This is certainly true with respect to their provision of and access to communications systems and services. At the end of 1998, four per cent of the Australian population still had no assurance of access to digital quality telecommunications despite a government pledge that digital data capability will be available to all Australians by 1 January 2000. And it is not surprising to note that this forgotten four per cent of the population is made up of those in rural and remote Australia as well as those in our external territories.Why should we bother about communications to and within Australia's external territories? To answer this question in the simplest terms possible, these islands and Antarctica have enormous strategic and economic and environmental value or potential value to Australia. In strategic and defence terms alone, an adequate communications system is imperative. Without improvements in the transport and communications systems of our external territories, the tourism potential of the islands and Antarctica can never be realised—denying opportunities for economic growth so critical to communities which are struggling to maintain the standard of living they have been able to achieve through a great deal of hardship. Having only one flight per week to Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, for example, with many problems created by this monopoly system, hampers the development of tourism to these unique environmental areas. Such a monopoly also creates problems of essential supplies, such as fresh food, medicines and resources.This report recommends that the new contract for airline services to the Indian Ocean territories—namely, Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands—to be negotiated later this year should provide for a sufficient increase in capacity over the present arrangements for the islands' freight, postal and tourism needs. By `sufficient' it is appropriate that the residents of those islands determine what they consider sufficient. The quality of broadcasting services must also be reviewed in mid-1999 after the transition to digital satellites is completed to determine whether alternative arrangements that ensure the external territories have continuous quality of service are needed. Further, the committee also recommends that by November 1999 the Australian Communications Authority should report on the progress of the Telstra upgrade of telecommunications facilities for Christmas and Cocos islands, especially regarding telecommunications service, accessibility, quality, reliability and cost.In the tradition of this government's mistreatment of the rural and remote users of our communications network, funding to the external territories has not been guaranteed under the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund scheme—RTIF. And now the government plans to make essential additional communications funding dependent on the sale of a further 16 per cent of Telstra. This is an entirely unacceptable response. RTIF money must be allocated to the territories irrespective of the planned further sale of Telstra. With respect to ongoing allocations, why on earth—as I have said in respect of legislation being debated in this place at the moment—should the Australian public be blackmailed into supporting the notion of a further sell down of Telstra because `if you do not the government's position is that you will not get essential access to the telecommunications backbone'?The Internet is an extremely difficult medium to access in the external territories, yet it has the potential to be the most valuable asset of the new communications technologies in addressing the problems of isolation. In fact, this government should acknowledge that Internet com activity and the availability of bandwidth is actually a critical key to providing for economic growth, education, health care and a range of essential services, including very practical government services like finding out your entitlements, laws under the tax act, what the Attorney-General's Department is doing or what other local service providers are doing. It is a very practical source of information that the government actively promotes on a regular basis. It seems that we hear every week of a new online initiative from this government. They make a lot of hay out there in the media and with the public as to the depth and range of these initiatives, much of which is vastly overstated. It was only today that I received yet another notice of another initiative that the government have taken in this area.That is all good and well but what if you cannot have access to that? What if your access to that is entirely contingent on a government policy of a further sell down of Telstra? What if your ability to get online is completely contingent on government control? In this case, what we have seen is a government withholding access to these new technologies by the way it constructs its policies about enhancing the telecommunications regime and providing services to remote Australians, of whom those who are residents of the external territories are included.Indeed, what is required is for the government to investigate and draw up strategic plans for the development of Internet services in the external territories, and then to proceed with looking at what the appropriate bandwidth capacity is. These considerations should not be dealt with in the framework of what is presented to them by carriers with vested interests. It should be presented in the format of what is required, with a bit of thought for the future and with a bit of thought that maybe the Internet is going to be more than a provider of government services. Maybe it is going to be a bit more than the provider of a vast array of interesting information for young people and old people alike.Bandwidth across this medium is going to be the source of certainly telephony, and we already have that technology in this country, with many carriers developing it. Perhaps it will be the key to enhancing and improving health and education services to these areas, just to give everyone a little bit of equity in the opportunities in their lives and a little bit of equity in their ability to access essential communications systems.As I have said previously, the only way for government to do this is for government to be very proactive about it. You do not exactly make a huge profit providing services to these areas. It is tricky and it takes a long time. It is a difficult and expensive service for carriers to provide. Unless government actively intervenes and promotes a quality service in these areas, it is just not going to happen. Those citizens, who have all the same rights and entitlements as everyone else, will miss out as a direct result of the government's position on it.The fact that the government has made ongoing improvements contingent on the further sell down of Telstra is an absolute disgrace and an insult to every citizen who currently lives outside of the metropolitan areas in this country. It is even more an insult because of the emphasis and the focus of the rhetoric. Certainly, Minister Alston continually talks about how important it is for remote and rural Australians to have Internet access, but it is like a big tease—`Yes, we think it is important. It is essential for your future. You must have this access. But by the way we are not going to let you have it because it is contingent on the sale of Telstra.' It is quite insulting and departs completely from the sense of social responsibility that should accompany any political party into government in Australia, and certainly anywhere else.The government should facilitate the phasing in of telemedicine and teleconference services, and the provision of infrastructure equipment and training to allow this. It should establish community telecentres to provide cost-effective access to the Internet. This is particularly an issue on Norfolk Island, where the cost of access is subject to a deal of scrutiny within the report. It is worthy of perusal for those who are interested in matters of access and equity and who are concerned enough about these issues to want to embark upon a course of action that has been recommended in this report to avoid Australia becoming a place where there are information haves and have-nots. I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.2909290916:59:002909Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Final report , together with submissions, Hansard record of proceedings and minutes.Ordered that the report be printed.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Report which I have just tabled is about a very important issue for Australia. It deals with the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or MAI, which caused a great deal of concern in the Australian community a year or so ago.It is very much to the credit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he was prepared to refer an inquiry into this matter to the Committee so that interested organisations and concerned citizens could have the opportunity to make their views known. This Committee was set up to provide Parliamentary scrutiny of treaty matters, and reports such as this vindicate its existence yet again.The Committee tabled an Interim Report on the draft MAI on 1 June 1998. That Report dealt with a number of the issues raised in the nearly 800 submissions received to that time. It recommended that Australia should not sign the draft Agreement unless and until a thorough assessment had been made of the national interest and a decision made that it was in Australia's interest to do so.The Interim Report also recommended that the Committee's inquiry continue with a view to providing a fuller report to the Parliament at a later date. Report 18 honours that commitment.This is a significant Report because, firstly, it is intimately connected with the subject of globalisation. Whether we like it or not, this country is part of the world. It is not possible to pretend that what occurs beyond our shores does not or will not have an impact on us. It is foolish to think that we can close our eyes to the fact or the consequences of globalisation.The financial crises which hit a number of formerly prosperous Asian countries from the middle of 1997 has shown that no country can be protected from market forces. One of the things to emerge most clearly from this situation is the need to have agreed international rules for the movement of capital.While the draft MAI sought to do this, it was the wrong agreement being negotiated by the wrong international body. The OECD is a group of 29, primarily wealthy Western nations. For example, no countries from the Middle East or Africa are members nor, most importantly, are any developing countries. There are now some 200 nations of varying sizes in the world.During our inquiry, concerns were expressed about the likely impact of the draft MAI on developing countries. Some witnesses believed that one of the things it sought to do was to open up developing countries to investment from OECD members on their terms.Secondly, this report is important because of the amount of interest it attracted. We received more than 900 submissions from all over Australia, and a few from overseas. The Committee held six public hearings to take evidence from a wide variety of organisations and individuals.Some people accused us of conducting a `secret' process, in the same way as they accused Treasury of planning to impose the draft Agreement on Australia. Regardless of how the negotiations were handled, I am satisfied that normal inquiry processes were followed.Following suspension of negotiations for the draft MAI in October last year, and after the Committee was reformed for this Parliament in December, we decided to finalise our report on this matter as soon as possible. This raises the third reason why this Report is important.One of the issues which came out of the submissions, and to a lesser extent the public hearings, was a considerable amount of evidence about a lack of trust of the treaty-making process, and about the operation of our democracy generally.It is a fact that Australia was involved in the negotiations for a draft MAI. As a member of the OECD, this was reasonable. Australia had formulated a preliminary list of exceptions to the negotiating text, and discussions about the matters to be covered by such a list were continuing. No decision had been made by the Government about Australia's ultimate attitude to the text.Some people believed that an absolute commitment had been made by the Government to the draft MAI. That is not correct.It has also to be said that the Treasury acted as if the draft Agreement was the last word in regulation of international capital. It is easy to admire its dedication to this cause, but hard to ignore the deficiencies in the means that were used to advance it. Too little information was provided about the draft Agreement too late, and those with legitimate concerns were not given the hearing they deserved.Treasury emphasised the amount of `misinformation' which was being distributed about the text, but began to hold effective discussions with interested parties too late to be able to prevent unnecessary concerns from being generated.In its Interim Report, the Committee set out its concerns about a range of issues which had then arisen. The Response to that Report, tabled last week, was both dismissive and gratuitous: negotiations on the text of the draft MAI have finished and there is no reason for the inquiry to continue.So much for the concerns generated in the minds of many citizens about this matter! It was as if the draft MAI was still being negotiated and Treasury had complete control of the process. It was ironic that the response to the Interim Report was tabled during the week in which we finalised this Final Report.I would like briefly to mention two other points before turning to our recommendations.First, the quality of evidence given by some Commonwealth agencies reflected a poor degree of preparation on the subject. It was alarmingly clear that, had the draft Agreement been adopted, little attention had been given to the likely overall impact it would have had on policies and programs.Second, it was regrettable that some submissions used extravagant language as part of the expression of legitimate concerns about this subject. Confronted by an absence of official information, it is not surprising that strong opinions were reflected in submissions. To accuse anyone involved with the negotiations of treason was a serious and unfortunate over-reaction.While negotiations on the text of the draft Agreement have ceased, it is not yet clear what will be done about the work already done within the OECD. Perhaps it will not be clear until the OECD Ministerial Council meets in April/May.Some people believe those at the international level who want to advance this matter further will ensure that it is adopted by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its meeting later in the year.The first recommendation in our Report is therefore that, if negotiations do resume on rules for the regulation of international capital, we believe that Australia has no alternative but to be involved. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where such regulation is required.Our second recommendation is that the responsibility for coordinating Australia's position in any continuing negotiations should be in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This change away from Treasury will be controversial within government, and will no doubt be resisted by Treasury. We believe that Treasury's performance to date has been such that it would be better if the responsibility for coordinating any new negotiations did not remain there.In the context of this recommendation, I would like to draw attention again to the Treasury attitude to those who had concerns about the draft MAI and, above all, to the arrogant and dismissive tone in the response to our Interim Report.We hope that those who contributed to this inquiry will feel that their involvement was worth-while. While we have tried to reflect all the points of view in the material we received, it is unlikely that everyone who reads this Report will agree with everything we have written. This inquiry process has been open and public, and we hope that those who read and use this Report will find it a useful document.I commend the Report to the Senate.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I would like to thank the committee secretariat in this matter. As honourable senators know, reports are successful or otherwise depending upon the quality of the secretariat, and the secretariat on this occasion was outstanding. The committee secretary until 2 December 1998 was Peter Stephens, who has gone on to other places. Taking over from him was Mr Grant Harrison, who has proved a secretary equal to Peter Stephens. The inquiry secretary, from July 1998, was Mr Patrick Regan. The research officers were Mr Jon Bonnar and Mr Bob Morris. The executive assistant was Ms Jodie Williams and the administrative assistant was Ms Elizabeth Halliday. The work the secretariat had to do is indicated by the number of submissions that were put forward. More than 900 submissions were received from around Australia. There was one from Japan, one from Laos and two from New Zealand.This report deals with treaty discussions that took place within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and it was handled on behalf of Australia by the Treasury. The report is, to put it mildly, critical of the Treasury because of the outcomes of the various conferences to which they went and because there was a perception within Australia that this was a secret operation—that the talks in respect of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment were secret talks. They were not and I am sure that Treasury did not see them as such. But perhaps there was a lack of consciousness on the part of Treasury as to the importance of communicating with the community as a whole. It is important—and in the Treaties Committee this is the way this is done—to tell people generally about issues.There was a perception in the community that somehow Treasury was going to open up Australia to investment and, in doing so, take away from Australia its sovereignty and so on. I do not think that was the intention of Treasury, but nevertheless that was the per ception that was allowed to grow. Something that must be remembered with issues like this is that, in the end, it is not only the economic integrity of Australia that we have to look to but also its social, cultural and, if you like, spiritual integrity. That was perhaps lacking in the material that came out of Treasury on this occasion. It has been said that we do not live in an economy, we live in a community. Perhaps that was overlooked.In any event the members of the committee, from all political sides, went about their task in a most impressive manner. The various submissions we got from around Australia were sincerely put, but some did indicate an apprehension that was perhaps unreasonable with regard to what was at stake here. This was a very important inquiry, carried out by a very competent secretariat. It has produced a very good report about a very vital matter. Clearly the world is more and more a village. The old concept of the global village is still there. It is a phrase not so much used these days but it is still there. There has to be investment around the world and Australia should be part of any conference or any agreement that takes that up.In doing that, it must be remembered that capital cannot be allowed to flow so that that flow has a bad impact upon the ordinary people that live within our shores. It was the ordinary people who live within our shores who got upset about matters and who gave evidence before the committee. We must remember that, in the end, it is the social and communal good that counts.17:04:002911Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to speak briefly on this. I spoke not long back—the last time the Senate sat—in relation to the government's response to the first report of the Joint Committee on Treaties. This of course is the second report and, if the government's policy is implemented, it will be the last report on this particular treaty per se.It is interesting to note the government's two-paragraph or so response to the first report, which said, `Let us not sign it unless it is in the public interest in Australia. Let us make sure we are fully advised on these kinds of issues.' The government then said, `Do not worry, it is not going to go any further.' That view is not necessarily shared by the joint committee, which obviously looked at this very carefully.It has been mentioned that there were over 900 submissions. Some of these people sent in extra submissions, so we are looking at about 940 actual documents that were sent to the committee. Considering the time that was originally available for people to send in submissions, this was an extraordinary response to something which was recognised widely in the community as having immense implications.Here we have the committee finding out, amazingly, that the Treasury had not done any modelling on what the impacts would be on the Australian economy. Yet we had the Assistant Treasurer giving answers to the Senate saying, `Everything will be OK so don't worry.' Considering the implications of a massive agreement on investment, on which Australia's official position was still very positive, as it seems was the case with most of the other countries involved, it does seem extraordinary.Is this the end? I do not think the committee is indicating that this is necessarily the case, that Australia should continue to be involved in those negotiations in relation to the agreement for the regulation of international capital and that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should assume the lead role in coordinating the government's negotiations. It is looking at what we should do in future when we are negotiating such treaties. The government's response last time was basically, `Don't worry, this one is over.' Here we have the committee saying, `If we are looking at these in the future, Prime Minister and Cabinet should be involved and basically there should be a line of responsibility.' Quite clearly, there should be a better line of communication and a much better level of information provided within the community.I am wondering just how many countries had a similar kind of attitude. How many countries had people negotiating on this huge and important treaty, where their actual population—the ones who knew about it, that is—were very much against what the government was ready to sign? This is a huge issue and I do not think that we have seen the end of it. Unfortunately there are likely to be individual agreements on this sought between countries in the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills2912r722Billsr726Billsr7172912Bills received from the House of Representatives.2912Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second readings 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.291217:08:002912Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—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—TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (SOFTWARE DEPRECIATION) BILL 1999This bill will implement the measures announced in the 1998-99 Budget to allow a deduction to be claimed over 2½ years for spending incurred in acquiring, commissioning or developing software. The measures will not apply to software which is trading stock or is used to produce trading stock.The measures broadly provide for spending to be written off over 2½ years. In certain circumstances, they also allow an immediate deduction. An immediate deduction will be allowed for software spending of $300 or less and for undeducted spending where software development projects are abandoned. This will be helpful for small business.An immediate deduction will also be allowable in relation for spending on new software or on substantially rebuilding current software to ensure Y2K compliance for an existing computer system, provided the expenditure is incurred prior to 1 January 2000. Finally, spending incurred before 1 July 1999 on software development projects which had been started by 11 May 1998 will continue to be immediately deductible.The Government has recognised the costs of complying with these measures. Taxpayers who develop or commission the development of software will therefore be able to choose between two methods of deducting expenditure. One method involves pooling spending incurred in an income year and writing that off over 2½ years from the year after it is incurred. Another method is to account for software development on a project-by-project basis and write the expenditure off over 2½ years from when the resulting software is used or installed ready for use.The legislation was released in draft form for public comment on 14 December 1998. Submissions received have been considered in finalising this bill and explanatory memorandumThe amendments generally apply to software spending incurred after 10am on 11 May 1998.I commend this bill to the Senate.FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999The purpose of this bill is to amend the Commonwealth's financial legislation to facilitate introduction of a full accrual financial framework from 1 July 1999.Under an accrual financial framework the Government will budget, manage and report on all of the Commonwealth's revenues and expenses (including those that have accrued), its assets and liabilities and its cash flows. This contrasts with the present framework where the accounting focus has been on cash transactions and cash balances with minimal emphasis on the transparency of other resource transactions and their underlying assets and liabilities.At a macro level, accrual information will make more transparent whether, over time, the Commonwealth is operating at a sustainable level, how its financial position is changing and how it is financing its operations.Greater transparency of government financial operations has been an important and continuing commitment of this Government. We have already put in place legislation dealing with budget honesty. The accrual framework builds on this initiative and ensures that government operations will at least match that of private sector entities operating under the Corporations Law.The move to an accrual framework was strongly supported by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its Reports 338 and 341 of August and November 1995, respectively, and the National Commission of Audit in its report of June 1996.As the National Commission of Audit stated, a full accrual accounting framework is an essential complement to the structural and cultural change the Government is seeking by way of a more competitive, efficient and effective public sector. It is also essential if the accountability requirements of the Parliament and the taxpayer, and the Government's commitment to a Charter of Budget Honesty are to be met.In the lead-up to the 1999-2000 financial year, the Government's May Budget will, for the first time, be presented on the basis of accrual principles.The Budget and forward estimates will therefore show the full effects of the Commonwealth's revenues and expenses as well as changes in its assets and liabilities and how they were financed. At the same time, coverage of the budget will be extended to the general government sector. That is, full details will be included for budget funded Commonwealth authorities as well as for government departments.The Appropriation Bills will also reflect accrual principles and will be structured to show how key budget appropriations are intended to contribute to `outcomes' sought by the Government. Ministers' Portfolio Budget Statements will show the full cost of the `outputs' (goods and services) needed to achieve those outcomes, providing a clear read across the budget documents.In order to show performance against the budget estimates, the Government's monthly financial statements will be prepared on an accrual basis, consistent with the budget documents. Transitional arrangements are provided in the bill for the accrual based monthly statements to be phased in from 1 July 1999, starting with quarterly statements, then moving to monthly as soon as soon as systems are fine-tuned.Coupled with these reforms, it is intended to devolve central accounting and banking arrangements to agencies. This is to encourage better cash management by agencies while still enabling central coordination of cash and consolidation of financial data. In future agencies will have their own bank accounts and will process and account for all receipts and payments in their own financial systems, rather than a central system.Under the new arrangements, the Government and its agencies will have a more complete picture of their performance and finances for decision making and accountability. Overall, the reforms will bring public sector resource management into line with the best of private sector business practice.I will now turn to the principal amendments in the bill which are aimed at facilitating the reforms I have outlined.The primary change made by the act is to repeal the provisions dealing with `fund accounting' while retaining the essential features of the funds—the ability to hypothecate money for specified purposes—through provisions to establish `Special Accounts' within the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF).Fund accounting was introduced by the Audit Act 1901 and is based on the notion that financial management and accountability can be supported by a simple system that requires the setting aside of separate pools of money designated for particular purposes. However, such accounting has been overtaken by more sophisticated financial management systems suited to the complexities of a modern business-like environment.The modern systems, which are being implemented by agencies, are not designed to perform fund accounting and its continuation would therefore require dual accounting systems to be kept. Clearly this would serve no useful purpose and be wasteful of resources. Further, the complexity of such an arrangement would frustrate the efficient and effective operation of the accrual framework that will operate from 1 July 1999.The current amendments will have the effect of merging the Loan Fund, Reserved Money Fund and Commercial Activities Fund with the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This will eliminate the need to maintain a multiple fund accounting system, including the inefficient legal requirement of daily transferring of moneys back and forth between the funds to keep them in positive balance. The current requirement does not assist financial management.The effect will be to give the CRF the central role envisaged by the founders of the Constitution rather than the diluted role that has emerged with the creation of additional funds outside the CRF.The amendments will also remove present unnecessary requirements for debiting and crediting various transactions to the CRF. The fund is `self executing' under the Constitution. That is, moneys paid to the Commonwealth form part of the CRF whether or not the Commonwealth has credited those moneys to a fund which is designated as the CRF. The Finance Minister will be required to cause proper accounts and records to be kept in relation to the receipt and expenditure of public money.One of the consequences of the repeal of the Reserved Money Fund is to remove the need for the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Act 1955. The bill repeals the LCIR act and provides the Treasurer with more appropriate powers for the purpose of managing the public debt of the Commonwealth.The repeal of the Reserved Money Fund also had to be tested against the new accrual appropriation regime which will require carry over of appropriations for unspent accrued costs. These appropriations will cover the full price of goods and services produced by agencies as well as the full cost of subsidies, benefits and grants (including accrued costs). Since some accrued costs may not need to be paid until future years (e.g. long service leave payments and payments for the replacement of assets from depreciation provisions ), appropriations will need to remain valid, without lapsing, until all such costs are fully met over time.The Solicitor-General has advised that the new accrual appropriation arrangements can operate exclusively within the CRF and do not require moneys for accrued costs to be paid into another fund to avoid lapsing. The appropriation bills will be amended to reflect these arrangements.In outlining the accrual framework that will operate from 1 July 1999, I mentioned that, in order to show performance against the budget estimates, the Government `s monthly financial statement will be prepared on an accrual basis. The bill will therefore repeal the present requirement for monthly reporting of the cash transactions of the funds. This will be replaced with one that will require the preparation of accrual financial statements.The bill will globally change the effect of references in other acts to the repealed Loan Fund, Reserved Money Fund and Commercial Activities Fund to mean the Consolidated Revenue Fund. References to the old funds will still appear in those acts for the time being. However, in consultation with my fellow Ministers, I propose, in due course, to introduce a consequential amendments bill that will ensure that terminology in other acts is consistent with the amended FMA act. This proposed law will be a catalyst for change to sharpen and strengthen the framework of Commonwealth financial administration.I commend the bill to the Senate.FURTHER 1998 BUDGET MEASURES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SOCIAL SECURITY) BILL 1999This bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the Government's 1998-99 Budget, and a number of non-Budget measures that will assist in more effective and efficient social security administration.First, the bill provides for fairer treatment for more than 26,000 workers currently employed in Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP), as well as providing increased incentives for those workers. These measures will provide for a CDEP participant supplement of $20 per fortnight, (similar to the $20 Work-for-the-Dole Supplement), and will provide access for CDEP workers rent assistance, bereavement payments, telephone allowance and pharmaceutical allowance. Also, in the interests of equity, adjustments are made to the income level provisions which apply to CDEP participants who are pensioners, treating CDEP income in the hands of those pensioners as directly deductible on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to the equivalent of the maximum basic rate of allowance. These provisions will commence on 20 September 1999, with the $20 Supplement granted retrospectively to 20 March 1999.The Government announced in its 1998 Budget that it would provide a special employment advance of $500, to assist an estimated 30,000 customers with the "start-up" costs of taking up employment. This measure will also be available to assist an estimated 4,500 people in financial hardship as they move from social security payments into work, where those people have earned money but haven't yet been paid. The bill provides for the measure to commence on 20 September 1999.In a further Budget measure, some 11,000 victims of domestic violence will be among those to benefit from the Government's initiative to introduce a new one-off crisis payment from 1 July 1999. This crisis payment will assist new and existing customers in financial hardship when they are forced to leave their home and establish a new one due to a limited number of circumstances, such as fleeing domestic violence or in the event of a house fire. The crisis payment will also replace the current prisoner release payment.In addition to the above, other Budget measures included in the bill will:. expand the definition of "suitable work" to ensure that persons who seek, and are offered, work outside of their local area will be required to accept that work, or be subject to an activity test breach;. tighten arrangements for unemployed persons who move to an area of lower employment prospects;. amend the liquid assets test that applies to education leavers, to rationalise inconsistencies in the application of that test as between those education leavers who claim newstart allowance, sickness allowance and youth allowance;. introduce a two-tiered payment structure for the austudy pensioner education supplement, geared to the study load undertaken by the student. Under this measure, students who undertake a study load of between 25-50 per cent will receive half the current rate (that is, $30 instead of $60). Disability support pensioners, and Department of Veterans' Affairs disability pensioners, will be exempt from this measure; and. promote consistency in the application of the newly arrived residents waiting period to migrants from all countries.Lastly, the bill contains various minor amendments rationalising the provisions in the act that relate to periods of overseas residence and travel.A further 1998 Budget measure, dealing with the receipt of lump sums received in respect of non-economic loss, will be dealt with in another bill to be introduced later in these Sittings.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings of 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills2915r673Billsr649Billsr6722915Bills received from the House of Representatives.2915Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second readings 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.291617:10:002916Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and 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—INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill amends the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 and contains provisions to streamline the administration of the research and development tax concession scheme, with the aim of reducing compliance costs for companies. It responds to the need for such measures identified in the Government's industry statement "Investing for Growth" last December.The bill will make the registration process easier for companies that wish to claim the tax deduction. The period for making an application for registration will be increased by 4 months, to a total of 10 months from the end of the year of income for which the company seeks registration. This will be more convenient for companies with normal accounting periods, giving them more time to prepare their applications and shifting the deadline away from busy periods on the calendar.The bill also addresses some rigidities in the procedures for company registration.The proposed changes will allow the Industry Research and Development Board a limited discretion to consider some late applications for registration and to correct minor errors made by companies in their registration applications. At present, even if there are exceptional circumstances, missing a deadline or getting the company name wrong in the application can cost a company its access to the Research and Development tax concession. This bill will give the Board more flexibility to treat such cases based on the specific circumstances attaching to each.The discretions being given to the Board will, however, be limited in such a way that they will not weaken those provisions of the act designed to prevent retrospective access to the tax concession.In addition, this bill will give the Board the flexibility to require different levels of information from different classes of applicant. This will enable the Board, for example, to reduce the information requirement, and hence the compliance cost of the scheme, for companies undertaking smaller dollar amounts of research and development.Companies eligible for approval to undertake up to ten per cent of their research and development activities overseas will also benefit from this bill. The proposed change will make the effective date for any Board approval the date on which the application is received. At present, any expenditure a company incurs between the date of application and Board approval—which can take some months—is not eligible for a concessional tax deduction. This bill will fix that situation.The bill also contains a raft of minor measures aimed at improving the administration of the research and development tax concession scheme consistent with improving its integrity and efficacy.These minor measures include clarification of the Board's powers in the areas of exploitation of R&D results and overseas expenditures on R&D; administrative improvements to the Registered Research Agency scheme; and housekeeping matters relating to Board appointments, sharing of information, and recruitment of consultants.I commend the bill.PETROLEUM RETAIL LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1998The Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 is a key element of the Government's strategy for the deregulation of the petroleum products industry.All sectors of the community benefit from the deregulation package, from the small service station operator who benefits from the real protections of the strengthened Oilcode, to the consumer who benefits through greater competition at the pump, and to the refinery worker whose oil company is better able to meet the competitive threat of imports.Repeal of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 will remove the artificial barriers to competition created by government regulation.By removing the impediments to competition, downward pressure will be placed on petrol prices, particularly in country areas.Greater competition should, over time, reduce the disparity in petrol prices between the city and the country, benefiting consumers, farmers and rural businesses alike.In removing the barriers to competition, the Government has taken heed of the issues that saw the acts introduced in the first place, and addressed them with meaningful measures that preserve the full force of competition.In pursuing these necessary reforms, the Government has been mindful of its commitment to maintaining small business protection in the sector and has strengthened it—providing real and meaningful protections for small service station operators.Since coming to office we have strengthened small business protections against unconscionable conduct, re-drawing the relationship between large and small firms so that it is more fair and equitable.Placing the strengthened Oilcode in regulation under Part IVB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 means that smaller participants in the industry will have legally enforceable protection from exploitation by larger firms.The new Oilcode will ensure that operators have a thorough understanding of their rights and obligations to their suppliers.It will also provide a mechanism where disputes can be settled expeditiously, at low cost and to all parties' mutual satisfaction.The principles of the new code were developed through many months of hard negotiation by the industry participants, facilitated by the Government through the appointment of the Hon Andrew Rogers QC to chair negotiations.In light of our commitment to regulatory efficiency we have given the industry players the opportunity to determine the regulatory framework within which they operate.Clearly a negotiated outcome would serve the industry best and create an environment of co-operation within retail networks.While some issues could not be resolved by mutual agreement of the industry participants, the Government welcomed the debate on these issues, and drew upon the negotiations in resolving the outstanding matters.The result is a set of draft principles that cover the major issues impacting on petroleum retailing, and addressing them in a way that recognises the needs of all industry participants. Apart from the very real progress that was made on finalising the Oilcode, the Government was heartened by the cooperation and good spirit shown during the negotiations, and by the recognition of all the parties that some agreement must be reached for the petroleum retail sector to be sustainable.To further facilitate agreement amongst the industry, the Government intends to release a draft Oilcode in mid-December for consideration by interested parties.The Government will also refer this bill to a Senate legislation committee. Issues of concern to smaller operators, such as open access to terminals, can be considered by the Senate committee.The deregulation of the petroleum products market is but one element of a strategy to address the issues facing the downstream petroleum products sector in Australia.The Government has already implemented a number of reforms to make the petroleum market more competitive.Prices surveillance and the setting of a maximum wholesale price have been discontinued, as they had the perverse effect of discouraging permanent discounting below the maximum.In return, all four oil majors now provide open access to their terminals. This means customers for bulk fuel supply are able to directly access terminals for supply, permitting independent operators, large customers and groups such as farmers cooperatives to access cheaper fuel.Mediation and arbitration is available to resolve disputes.The oil majors are committed to support an independent price monitoring system for 100 country towns which will be monitored by the Australian Automobile Association.A cooperative effort is needed, from all of those with an interest in the industry's future, to work together to better enable this important sector of the economy to meet the challenges of the twenty first century.The Government is playing its part in this, having announced that an industry action agenda will be developed to address the issues facing the downstream petroleum products sector in a holistic way.The deregulation package, of which the repeal of the Sites and Franchise Acts is but a part, is a down-payment on the Government commitment to all participants in this industry, that the Government will respond to the issues the industry faces.The cooperation within the industry that has led to the finalisation of the principles of the strengthened Oilcode reinforces the Government's belief that participants can look beyond their own interest, and towards the future and an improved operating environment for all. The industry action agenda builds upon this, and will deliver Australia an efficient and sustainable petroleum products sector for many years to come.It is further demonstration that the Liberal and National Parties are the only groups with the commitment to deliver real reforms in the petroleum sector.Over the last 30 years, there have been a number of inquiries into the petroleum industry. The only two Governments which have implemented measures in response to those inquiries are the Fraser Government, which in 1980 introduced the Fife reforms, and the Howard Government, which has delivered this package of reforms.On the other hand, the Australian Labor Party, over 13 years in government, comprehensively failed to do anything to introduce similar reforms.Reforms which are about making the Australian petroleum products industry work for all Australians, be they producers, retailers or consumers of petroleum products.Reforms which repeal legislation that has out-lived its usefulness, while still addressing the issues that made the legislation necessary in the first place.Reforms which deliver upon the Government's election commitment to reform the petroleum market, but do so in a way that remains sensitive to the needs of smaller players in the industry, who often are not in a position to adequately protect themselves.This bill, and the other aspects of the deregulation package, are about fairness—fairness for the oil companies to be able to meet the challenges of the market, fairness to the small service station operator when dealing with their oil company, and fairness to the consumer, who will reap the dividends of greater competition.I commend this bill to the House.HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 1999Introductory RemarksThe Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 lapsed before the Senate with the calling of the recent federal election. I am now pleased to reintroduce the bill which implements a number of significant and important changes to the administration, functions and procedures of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission).These reforms will enhance the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Australians and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission. The first major reform introduced by this bill is the Government's response to the High Court's decision in Brandy v The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 127 ALR 1.In that case the enforcement mechanism in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was found to be unconstitutional on the basis that the Commission, as an administrative body, could not make a final determination as to the rights of the parties to a dispute.This decision also affected the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Privacy Act 1988.As a result of that decision, an interim solution was introduced by the previous Government. However, it was inefficient and cumbersome.The bill therefore proposes to maintain the Commission's conciliation role, but to provide the parties with direct access to the Federal Court should conciliation prove unsuccessful. This will enable the parties to obtain a timely and enforceable determination of their respective rights.In order to ensure the Court is accessible the bill also includes a number of additional reforms. The Court will be able to adopt informal procedures as it will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms.In addition, the Court will be able to make Rules of Court which delegate any of its powers to judicial registrars (apart from the power of granting interim injunctions).The second major reform involves the consolidation of the three complaint handling schemes under the Sex, Race and Disability Discrimination Acts into one uniform scheme.The bill provides that all complaints of unlawful discrimination under these acts, and complaints involving alleged breaches of human rights and equality of opportunity will now be made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.The President will assume responsibility for all complaint handling under the new uniform scheme while Commissioners are to be given an amicus curiae function to argue the policy imperatives of their legislation before the Federal Court.The third major reform made by this bill will be to clarify the lines of management responsibility, facilitating timely decision making and providing for the better administration of the Commission.The President is to become the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, and will assume responsibility for those functions currently conferred on the Commission itself.Finally, the bill also implements a number of changes suggested by the Senate Legal and Consti tutional Legislation Committee when it considered the earlier draft of the bill in 1997.Amongst others, new provisions now deal with:- complaints against the President, Commission or a Commissioner;- the withdrawal and termination of complaints;- the replacement of a representative complainant; and- the amendment of a complaint.The amendments made by this bill are complex, primarily because the different complaint handling provisions in three schemes have been amended, and a single uniform scheme included in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.In making these changes, the Government has taken steps to ensure that the new procedures represent best practice.Notably, the bill maintains the Commission's role in conciliation, as this step in the process has proved most effective. Indeed, most complaints do not proceed past this stage.The bill also clearly delineates the Commission's function of impartially attempting to conciliate complaints from the Commissioners' advocacy role in promoting the protection of human rights.These, together with the new management structure of the Commission, are important and timely reforms.Debate (on motion by Senator Gibbs) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills2919r6552919Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.291917:11:002919Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This Government has committed itself to reform to ensure a strong and viable private health system—a private health care system that complements Medicare and ensures Australia maintains a quality health care system.The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 sets in place the framework for the introduction of a number of important reforms to the private health insurance product. These reforms are designed to make the product more attractive to consumers and complements the government's 30 per cent rebate.This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 and concerns itself with reform in seven key areas. Parts 1 to 5 of schedule 1 deal with five of these reforms:. Part 1 deals with reforms to allow registered health funds to offer discounted premiums in specific circumstances;. Part 2 deals with reforms to allow health funds to offer loyalty bonuses;. Part 3 deals with reforms to pre-existing ailment provisions to allow for waiting periods to be extended in particular instances;. Part 4 deals with reforms to allow health funds to cover the cost to fund members of pharmaceutical benefits prescribed while as patients in hospital; and. Part 5 deals with reforms to extend payments by health funds for procedures undertaken in Approved Procedures Facilities.Schedule 2 covers the consequential amendments to both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 which are required to implement appropriately the schemes outlined in the bill. This Schedule contains a number of miscellaneous provisions further reinforcing the principle of community rating in light of the discounting, loyalty bonus and pharmaceutical benefits reforms proposed in this bill.Finally, Schedule 3 takes care of few administrative matters allowing for the transfer of the `rates of contribution' rule change provisions from the Minister to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council prior to the repeal of these provisions in the medium term. Schedule 3 also amends ministerial discretion with respect to fund rule changes, requiring that decisions in relation to a particular fund rule change include regard for the effects of the proposed change on the industry as a whole. This bill delivers another important part of the Government's commitment to address the declining private health insurance membership.It follows on from major government reforms in the area of private hospital arrangements detailed in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 and complements the Government's 30 per cent rebate for health insurance premiums at the time of the last election.This bill was amended in the House of Representatives to remove Part 6. The removal of Part 6 reflects the Government's intent to study the effectiveness of the provisions relating to `Approved Procedures Facilities' at Part 5 of the bill before considering implementation of the provisions relating to `specialist services'. Should implementation of the `Approved Procedures Facilities' measures prove successful, the Government may well look again at the question of extending health insurance benefits to specialist consultations.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Gibbs) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Committees292029202920The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Sherry)—A message has been received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate of an appointment to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Details of the membership will be recorded in the Senate Journals and Notice Paper.Bills2920r637Billsr635Billsr633Billsr636Billsr6342920Debate resumed.17:12:002920Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—When I made earlier remarks on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and related bills I was referring to the important issue of what happened when the Senate last engaged in this debate for the sale of the first third of Telstra and I mentioned the debacle over the project management fees paid by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing to the global coordinators. Of course, the Audit Office had a few things to say about the way the sale was conducted and the fees that were paid; in fact, I should probably say `overpaid'. In a letter to the chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee last week, the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, said:The scale of the $35.6 million Project Management Fee paid by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing to the three Global Coordinators was unprecedented for a privatisation.The Auditor-General has some very serious concerns and identified significant flaws in the way the Howard government sold off this public asset. For example, at least $5 million worth of fees were paid for underwriting services which were not actually provided. There were serious anomalies in the accounting for the international marketing roadshow which cost over $3 million or $139,000 a day: anomalies such as an absence of comprehensive reconciliation of roadshow expenditure with supporting documentation—in fact some expenditure did not seem to relate to the Telstra roadshow at all; anomalies such as travel expenses significantly exceeding entitlements; and some expenditure did not reconcile with the roadshow itinerary.These serious anomalies still have not been sufficiently addressed by this government. What have they done instead? They have gone and appointed the same old mob, the same crew, to manage the next sell-off. Instead of investigating these serious and potentially fraudulent activities, they have rewarded the same mob for their incompetence last time around by reappointing them for an even bigger project.What of the coalition's social bonus? What has that won for the National Party? I am glad some National Party senators have come to listen to this important contribution. It has won $70 million over five years to establish rural transaction centres for services such as banking, postal, Medicare claim, and phone and fax facilities. This will barely replace the services ripped out of rural and regional Australia in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets. And are Senator Boswell and Senator McGauran aware that, according to Don Argus in the Bulletin on 16 March, the banks' support for these centres will be conditional on the government giving the green light to bank mergers?There is an amount of up to $150 million over three years to extend untimed local call zones in rural areas. What happens after three years? A fully privatised Telstra may not maintain extended call zones of its own accord. Is the government going to continue to subsidise Telstra services to the bush? If they were going to do that, would it not be better to maintain Telstra in public ownership with the power to direct? What will the cost of ongoing subsidy be? Which areas will benefit from an ongoing arrangement? And, of course, there is $250 million more for the Natural Heritage Trust. On past experience, about 95 per cent will probably go to Liberal and National Party electorates to try to shore up their declining voter support in those regions.I urge the Senate not to be conned by this. Do not allow the government to hold the Senate hostage to a social bonus. Do not be sucked in like the National Party have been—not all of them, I admit. I would like to remind the National Party senators of the message from their colleague Mr Katter on the eve of the first Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 being knocked back in the Senate last July. He said:If you want to go around and treat with contempt 90 per cent of the party membership who raise the money for you and stand in the hot sun handing out how-to-vote cards and still some of them believe in you, if you want to break their hearts and destroy what little faith they have left, then go right ahead and vote for anything above 49 per cent.That was Mr Katter in 1998 on 8 July on the World Today . Even Mrs De-Anne Kelly on this issue has nailed her colours to the mast. She said:. . . when you strip away the rhetoric what Telstra is really saying, quite properly is that if they have shareholders they'll be looking at the bottom line, not the back paddock.That is what Mrs De-Anne Kelly said.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—It is a good line.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—She is one of the old agrarian socialists in the National Party, as you would appreciate, Senator Mackay. The same sorts of concerns, among many others, also guide the Labor Party in opposing this legislation.We will not be won over by a sham inquiry. We will not be condoning any sleazy deals, the like of which we saw in this chamber during the last parliament. Who can forget the cynical political deal that Senator Alston instigated to get the one-third privatisation through the Senate—that deal that was so transparent and finally proved to be so shonky? Senators, including Senator Harradine, would not have known that Senator Alston was going to betray his commitment in regard to jobs in Tasmania, that he would blatantly disregard the ironclad commitments that he made on the floor of this chamber. I suppose senators, including Senator Harradine, understand the value of someone giving their word. I suppose they expect that if a deal is struck, if you reach an agreement, people would stick to it. I suppose that is the case. The Prime Minister gave his word. Senator Hill gave his word. Senator Alston gave his word. But of course their word was worth nothing.This is a government that cannot be trusted, as you know only too well, Mr Acting Deputy President. This government could not be trusted in its first term of office, with its core and non-core promises, and you cannot trust them in this term of office. Mr Howard and his cronies like Senator Alston will do anything and say anything to try to get legislation such as this through the parliament if they believe it will translate into votes in the electorate and on the floor of the Senate. They betrayed the Australian public to get their vote in the 1996 election, after promising that they would attempt to sell only one-third of Telstra in their first term of government. Do not forget Mr Howard's ironclad commitment that over the three years from when the election was called they would privatise no more than a third of Telstra. That was broken. You really have to accept this is a government which, given any opportunity, will breach its commitments to the electorate and to the parliament. Telstra just represents another broken promise. Our core communications provider became a non-core promise.There is no new or compelling evidence that the full privatisation of Telstra is going to bring benefits to ordinary Australians—none at all. The Senate has rejected the full privatisation of Telstra previously. I urge senators to take the same position they took last July and vote down this legislation, in the interests of all Australians, once and for all.17:22:002922Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—We have before us today, in the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998, a bill that is wholly designed for the full sell-off of Telstra and not just for a 16.4 per cent further sell-off—make no mistake about that. The Australian people are quickly learning that this government has no heart and no commitment to improving the lot of Australian people. Many are learning at their expense what economic rationalism, which will be used to justify the Telstra sale, means to them.The first stage of the legislation before us will see, should it pass the Senate, an immediate further 16.4 per cent sell-down of Telstra, making Telstra 49.9 per cent privately owned. The second stage, the sale of the remaining 50.1 per cent, may proceed after a minimum designated period of six months, during which time Telstra must meet certain criteria relating to performance in metropolitan and rural, regional and remote areas of Australia. The evaluation of Telstra's performance will be undertaken by an `independent' inquiry. Once satisfied, the Commonwealth is then free to sell the remainder of Telstra without further reference to the parliament.We have here today not just a vote on the further 16.4 per cent sell-down but a vote on the full privatisation of Telstra. This parliament will never have a chance again to keep Telstra in majority Australian ownership if this legislation is passed by this Senate. This continues the dangerous trend which this government has commenced of allowing changes to be made without timely or due reference to the parliament. In effect, we are being asked to accept the whole privatisation of Telstra without giving it serious consideration. Make no mistake, and I reiterate: we are dealing with the full privatisation of Telstra here.Before I debate the issue of the full sale of Telstra, let us look at what the sale of the first one-third delivered for Australia. Firstly, I think the point has been well made by a number of other senators that the Auditor-General's report made some very interesting findings. The budget for the sale, estimated at $210 million, blew out by $65 million to $275 million. The Auditor-General found that the managers of the sale were selected by the government before any negotiation enterprise was entered into. This point has been traversed by Senator Faulkner. The Auditor-General then found that the budget for overseas promotion of the sale went over by $2.1 million, and that $5 million was spent on underwriting fees for shares that required no underwriting. And the list goes on—all of it taxpayers' money wasted on selling part of one of our major assets.The Australian Communications Authority revealed that in the quarter to December 1997 there was a significant decline in the service delivery quality to remote and regional areas—a bit of an understatement there, I think. The ACA considered unsatisfactory a drop in the clearance of faults within one day in rural areas by 13 per cent, down four per cent on the national average. Clearance of faults within one day for public phones declined by 20 per cent, down 10 per cent on the national average. We are not talking about elaborate or expensive technology here; we are talking about a phone and a line, and equipment that connects regional and remote communities to the broader community.It is a right for people to have access to such communications technology, a right that now faces the potential of being seriously compromised under this government through the proposed privatisation of Telstra. Senator Schacht publicly highlighted in June of last year that, `Telstra's new service connection performance in country areas has dropped from 82 per cent to 64 per cent in just over 12 months.' These figures dramatically demonstrate that the partial privatisation of Telstra has affected service delivery to rural and regional areas. I am confident in saying that, should the privatisation of Telstra go ahead, there will be a further diminution in service delivery. There is no doubt that the decline in services that we are already experiencing can be linked only to the partial sale of Telstra. It is a clear, plain link for all to see—those who are not blinded by a particular pro-privatisation prejudice.The Australian people know the importance of telecommunications to regional and remote areas. To them, the telephone is a lifeline for business and community alike. It is a contact with others and a link with their community. Why does this government have such difficulty coming to terms with this fact? Let us have a look at Tasmania—our state, Acting Deputy President Sherry. I note that a number of senators have said in the debate that Tasmania received favourable treatment as a result of the one-third sale of Telstra. Of course, you and I both know that that is simply not the case.We supposedly benefited substantially from the first one-third sale, but let us look at the reality. Tasmania is already reeling from the partial sale of Telstra, let alone from what we will be faced with should the full privatisation go ahead. According to Telstra, Tasmania as a state in its own right does not exist. Instead, we see that Tasmania is considered to be part of the Vic-Tas country region. This clearly has serious ramifications for how Tasmania is serviced. In the Vic-Tas country region of Telstra there are currently some 370 orders for new connections in abeyance due to the lack of network, and 91 of these are in Tasmania. A total of 161 are past the completion date that Telstra quoted. This is not a Tasmanian phenomenon only but is relevant to all of regional and rural Australia—to South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales.Late last year it was proven, in that Telstra did not demur, that 10 per cent of Tasmania's linespeople were out of the state, working in New South Wales. Telstra has transferred the much needed skilled workers to the profitable metropolitan areas of Australia, such as Sydney, to assist in network fault reductions. This has the consequential effect of blowing out new connection and fault reduction waiting times in Tasmania. Once again we see a partially privatised Telstra pandering to the profitable metropolitan areas of this country. Imagine the scale of these transfers under Telstra should a further 16.4 per cent sell-down occur.Let us look again at the supposed favoured treatment that Tasmania got on the first one-third sale. Only a couple of weeks ago my office received a phone call from a resident in Strahan on Tasmania's west coast in relation to a delayed new connection. A 71year-old woman had been promised by Telstra that her new phone connection would be installed by 31 December 1998. When the linesperson came to connect the phone prior to 31 December, it was discovered by the linesperson that 200 metres of network cable in the street needed replacing before her phone could be connected. You would think there would be no problem. But Telstra have now contracted out so much of their work that the contractor who digs all of Telstra's cable trenches was unable to get down from the north-west coast—Burnie, I think—until some time in March, despite the commitment to the constituent that the connection would be made by 31 December.According to this 71-year-old woman, who moved into a new residence on 1 December 1998, she was going to be without any kind of a phone until March 1999. We are talking about somebody of considerable age, who clearly needs to be connected by phone in terms of services. March 1999 quickly became 31 March 1999 because Telstra were well aware that the contractor was not prepared to travel to the west coast to dig 200 metres of trench for the constituent—for just that one job. It was not economically viable for this contractor to do so, and that is fair enough. They obviously leave it until they have a number of jobs to be done on the west coast of Tasmania before they do it. Meanwhile this constituent is still waiting in relation to her phone service. We have taken this up with Telstra and we are hopeful of a speedy resolution. But so much for the `favourable treatment' that Tasmania got on the one-third sale.Secondly, about four weeks ago the Telstra mobile phone tower near the Grand Chancellor Hotel in Hobart went off line. Linespeople looked at the job and discovered that a particular cable was required to remedy the fault. The cable should have been readily available in the Telstra Hobart store but, as this store is to be closed on 30 June 1999—more rationalisation—they are in the process of winding down their practice and did not have any of the cable in stock. Accordingly, the Telstra store in Sunshine, Victoria, was requested to urgently freight it, priority, from Victoria to Hobart, costing the company $1,000 in freighting fees. When it finally reached the linespeople in Hobart—you guessed it—it was the wrong cable. The whole process had to be repeated. The most despicable thing about this matter is not the cost to the company for the freight but the loss of service to customers of this mobile tower, which took two days to fix. This is only one example of incorrect equipment being sent over for a job. I could go on and name a number of other examples.Another issue: two weeks ago my office received a call from a constituent in Levendale, complaining about his residential phone connection and the fact that for four weeks he had been having problems with it. There are currently six to eight homes in the Levendale area in Tasmania which are without a residential phone. The caller to my office currently has a sporadic phone service—sometimes it works and sometimes it does not work. The caller to my office is the fire chief for the local volunteer fire brigade. It is imperative that he is contactable by phone. It is not that Telstra employees have not turned up to fix the problem. They have, but it is proving to be a very difficult problem. The last time they were there, six other homes ended up losing their phone services. Telstra have now advised the people concerned that Telstra are understaffed and that they would not be able to get any linespeople out to fix the problem until next Tuesday. We are talking about a whole week, where up to eight homes will be without a simple telephone service. This frankly defies belief.This is Tasmania, the state that got the favoured status, the state that is supposed to have got all the money from the first one-third sale. This is what is happening. If you think this is bad, just think what it would be like if Telstra's public ownership was further diluted. I, along with other Tasmanian senators, ask Senator Harradine to consider this. This is how our national asset has been undermined by the privatisation push. It needs to stop now, full stop, end of story.The government's approach to communications policy is market driven with no concern for the needs of rural and regional Australia. As Adrian Lynch said in the Australian on 5 May 1998, not only are rural people discriminated against because of physical distance but they are also discriminated against because their communities are not profitable. Rural communities have therefore become a very low priority indeed for Telstra. If you do not believe us—and I am sure Senator Tierney does not—just listen to what the NFF had to say on the matter of the government's majority report:The only recommendation—says the NFF—that has come through of worth, from NFF's perspective, is its recommendation that there be review of the appropriateness of standard call zones. The many other issues that NFF has provided to the government, that relate to its core election promises on telecommunications, don't seem to have been addressed by the report itself. Those things relate to the provision of the 64-kilobyte digital data service. This is very important from a rural and regional perspective and must come through.That is what was said by Mr Mark Needham of the NFF on the World Today program on the ninth of this month. I join with Senator Faulkner in saying that our National Party counterparts on the other side of the chamber ought to take stock of these comments, particularly as they have come from the National Farmers Federation. These are your supporters that we are talking about.On the matter of cross-subsidisation, let us get back to the `favoured status'—she says sarcastically—of Tasmania. Each and every electorate in Tasmania is cross-subsidised by Telstra. Bass, on the north-east coast of Tasmania, received $2.75 million by way of cross-subsidisation in the 1994-95 year. Braddon and Lyons are subsidised by $1.6 million and $4.4 million respectively. The full sale of Telstra would be devastating to Tasmania with no guarantee that cross-subsidisation would not be abolished at the expense of greater dividend return to shareholders. And we have all seen the comments from Frank Blount in relation to that. Cross-subsidisation is there to ensure that all Australians have access to a basic phone service.Let me refer to Tasmania again, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry. I am sure you will be very interested in this. Since February 1997, Tasmania has suffered the loss of 220 jobs from the commercial and consumer sections of Telstra. This is a figure we got from the CEPU. Before senators on the other side start their usual anti-union chorus—Senator Calvert interjecting—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Come in, spinner! Senator Calvert has done it. I am unable to quote Telstra employment figures because Telstra have refused—and have probably refused Senator Calvert as well—on many occasions to provide the figures, so we are left with quoting the CEPU. Come in, spinner. Senator Calvert says, `Oh, union mates,' et cetera. We requested the provision of Telstra employment figures by function and by location, full-time and casual. My office requested the information directly from the Telstra Government Liaison Officer here in Canberra. He said he would pass the request on. I am not blaming this person. I think that he did pass the request on. That was back in December last year, but we did not get that information.What is going on here? Why can't we get hold of this information? Why can't we get the figures on employment in Telstra in Tasmania by function, by location, full-time, part-time and casual? Why aren't Telstra giving us the figures? Why aren't the government giving us the figures? What are they trying to hide? I will tell you what they are trying to hide: the continuing cuts to full-time permanent jobs and the replacement of full-time workers with part-time and casual workers, often from labour hire companies.Subsequently, we are seeing enormous amounts of overtime worked by the dwindling number of staff in Telstra. In the Vic-Tas country region, for the past two years Telstra employees have been working, on average, enough overtime—if it were directly translated—to employ 176 full-time equivalents. So, over two years, enough overtime has been worked by Telstra staff in Vic-Tas to account for 176 full-time jobs. Telstra cannot argue that those jobs were lost due to deregulation and not privatisation. Those jobs were cut to improve the bottom line for a company that is trying to make itself more attractive to investors. If the work is there to be done, why cut jobs only to pay large amounts of overtime? It really does defy belief, and it certainly does fly in the face of the commitments that people got. What other human and social consequences are there for those workers doing all the overtime? I am sure that a number of them are happy to have the money but, with that amount of overtime, you really have to consider the safety aspects.The jobs that Telstra and this government promised to deliver to Tasmania are part time at best and casual in practice. Where are the 140 jobs in northern Tasmania that were promised to Senator Harradine? We are still waiting. How many times have we heard Telstra and the minister blow their trumpet about creating all those jobs in call centres in Tasmania? Do we hear them say that they are only casual jobs? No, we don't. Do we hear them say that sometimes only three hours of work per week is worked? No, we don't. The Hobart call centre now has a ratio of two casual employees to every permanent employee. How can Telstra and the government justify this as job creation while it is busy slashing permanent, highly skilled jobs in Tasmania and regional Australia?Telstra, in a further restructuring of its operations, has established a joint venture, Stellar, with the US based Excell. This is to establish a broader presence in the call centre market. Last month, Stellar moved to register a non-union agreement to cover its call centre in Queensland. The working conditions proposed in this agreement include an hourly wage rate some 30 per cent lower than that currently being paid by Telstra. The CEPU believes that Telstra will seek to use Stellar as at least one course of casual labour for the operated assisted services area, and may ultimately transfer the total management of its OAS business to the company. It is part of what part-privatisation has done to Tasmania. What will further dilution of public ownership provide us? Just what conditions will Telstra employees have to endure?Senator Harradine is right not to trust this government. We only need to look at the commitments that were given to him in 1996 and the litany of broken promises. The work management centre is simply the tip of the iceberg. Senator Harradine was correct to be very angry about that. I hope he will bear this in mind. I reiterate and remind the chamber of Senator Harradine's words: `This is a government you cannot trust.' We are hopeful Senator Harradine bears this in mind in his discussions with the government on any deals or any arrangements about the further 16 per cent sell-off. (Time expired)17:42:002926Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We are debating yet again the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . Despite the fact that the government has been to two elections now and has been absolutely and totally up-front at each election on what it proposes to do, it has yet again been frustrated in this chamber. The Labor Party's opposition is pretty predictable, particularly given comments in Senator Mackay's speech. We know where they are coming from: straight out of the union movement. That is obvious. It is a great pity that the minor parties are not a little more thoughtful about what is best for Australia in this process.As well as going to the election twice, we have also gone to a series of inquiries, and I have been on a number of these. For those of you who have seen the movie Groundhog Day, it is all a bit like that. Each time we have an inquiry it is precisely the same: the same list of suspects, the same people fronting up, the same old arguments, the same set positions, no-one changing their view—what a waste of time it has been on each occasion. As we listen to the contributions from the Labor Party, it is obvious they have absolutely no intention of changing their minds, despite the evidence they keep trotting out—the same old tired Labor lines. This is surprising, given their track record on privatisation and the views of their former government on what they might do with Telstra.We are all aware that, under the last Hawke and Keating governments, they tried to flog off everything in sight. These were the former socialists selling off public assets as fast as they could. They went into elections in the 1980s saying, `Oh no, we'll never sell the Commonwealth Bank.' Of course, they flogged off the Commonwealth Bank.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Paul Keating, was it?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I will get to that fellow Keating in a minute. Then there was Qantas. No, they were never going to sell Qantas. The hide of the Liberal Party suggesting that! Of course, after the election in the 1980s they went ahead, sold part of it and eventually sold the lot. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was another one. The last big asset remaining was Telstra. What was their approach to that? The Business Review Weekly , with Robert Gottliebsen, told us in late 1995, before the 1996 election, that Paul Keating had approached BHP with a view to flogging off the whole of Telstra.Here we are arguing about bits—33 per cent, 16 per cent—when `big picture man' Paul Keating wanted to flog off the lot in one hit. That was his plan. It is what he would have done had he got back into power in 1996. Had the Labor government been returned to office in 1996, all of Telstra would have been sold. What absolute humbug for those opposite to come in here and waste the time of the Senate by debating a position that they would not have taken. We, on the other hand, were totally up-front with the public. In two elections now we have stated what we plan to do with Telstra and we are constantly frustrated by the chamber.Unlike our parties in government, those opposite do not have a firm and consistent plan as to what they intend to do with Telstra. Our plan is quite clear. We believe that a privatised telecommunications carrier in an open and competitive market will work best. What does the Labor Party believe? It depends who you ask in the Labor Party. We had the grand Keating plan, which I have already mentioned, to sell off the lot. Now we have the Beazley plan which, at this stage, is to keep it in majority government ownership. We also have the Tanner-Campbell plan which seems to be at variance with the Lundy plan, who is the spokesman.Tanner and Campbell, being focused on their union masters, want to take a different line altogether. They want to keep what they call `core assets' in public ownership and flog off all the peripheral new and growing profitable areas. We know what is behind that: the new and growing profitable areas happen to have very little union membership and the core areas have high union membership. They are only interested in protecting their union position. What a disaster for Australian telecommunications it would be if they were able to do that.We are in an international marketplace. If we have a large, competitive, efficient carrier in an international market, it can compete with the best in the world. What is proposed by Tanner and Campbell would break it all up. They seem to be suggesting that it would be broken up in several ways, including core and non-core assets. That is one way of breaking it up. City versus the bush is another way. I believe Senator Campbell has a proposal to create a whole lot of mini-telcos which would end up struggling to survive around the country areas. Obviously he is trying to model that on the `Baby Bells' in America. That does not seem to be an approach that is very viable.So we come back to the key question: what does the Labor Party actually believe on this? What is the plan? Where is the leadership from Beazley saying, `This is the way we are going'? His shadow minister, Lundy, and the two bovver boys, Latham and Tanner, are heading off in totally different directions and, of course, George Campbell backs the union line. There is no consistent line on the other side. We certainly have one.What we are doing is totally consistent with what is happening in telecommunication industries around the world. Everyone, it seems, sees this except the opposition today. Most countries that formerly had full public ownership of their telco have gone down this path, way ahead of what we have done. Even totally Marxist countries such as Cuba and Albania have also gone this way. As a matter of fact, Cuba flogged off half its telcos to Mexico. They were the buyers. It was Fidel Castro doing this. Yet over to the left of Fidel Castro we have the Labor Party opposite saying, `Oh no, things should be kept in public ownership.'Senator Mackay mentioned some of the things she claimed have deteriorated. I just wonder when the golden age actually existed for Telstra and its predecessor, Telecom. The standard of service, from what I remember—and you do not have to go back to the 1970s and 1980s—was pretty appalling. In the early 1990s, we brought into this chamber a report that was leaked to us concerning the appalling level of standards of service under Telstra in south-western New South Wales in terms of its repair rates and call-outs. Senator Mackay spent a lot of time telling us about how things are dropping away, but I do not know what her reference point is. Standards were certainly very poor back in those days.In terms of controlling what Telstra is doing, she totally misses the point. You do not control these things by government ownership. You control these things by proper regulation and a bill that gives that teeth. With the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill, that is exactly what this government proposes to do. It has, through this legislation, laid down the parameters for how all telcos should operate—not just Telstra but Optus, Vodaphone and all the other new players that have come into the market since it was deregulated in the middle of 1997. All those players are subject to the legislation; all those players are subject to the universal service obligations that are in the bill; and all those players are subject to the customer service guarantee provision in the legislation.Nowhere in Senator Mackay's speech did I hear her make any reference to that. She seemed to be pretending that, if we privatised Telstra, it would be a law unto itself. Listening to her speech, you would think that the service standards which Telstra provides—the prices and other aspects of its operation—were totally out of government control. It is not the case at all because of the way in which we have brought in customer service guarantees and universal service obligations.Looking at the so-called downside of the privatisation of Telstra that has been referred to this afternoon, the point was made by a number of speakers, including Senator Faulkner, about the loss of jobs in Telstra. Let me make the point very clearly that job losses in Telstra has nothing to do with the issue of privatisation; it has a lot to do with the issue of competition and a lot to do with the restructuring of telecommunications in Australia in the new, dynamic environment which we are now in.What we are really looking at here is what is happening in the total industry, that is, good news for jobs—14 per cent annual growth in jobs in this industry is stunning. If people are moving out of jobs in Telstra, there are jobs in other parts of telecommunications and in the wider field of electronic commerce. In this country at the moment we have a shortage of people to fill 60,000 positions in the whole IT area. We cannot find enough people. So there are opportunities. It might not be precisely the job that people are doing at this time, but there are new opportunities opening up in the industry. Through the deregulated system that we have created, we have allowed this to develop. It is not an ownership question; it is a competition question.There was some emphasis in the debate on what happens in rural industries. I mentioned before that Senator George Campbell's idea on mini-telcos is a disaster. They would struggle in the bush. What you need in the bush is the cross-subsidisation that occurs with USOs. All the different telcos could put money into this fund and then it could be spent—as we have done—on the Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. So far, we have put $250 million into that fund to improve telecommunications in the bush. If the tranche gets through to sell up to 49 per cent of Telstra—that extra 16 per cent—there will be $671 million to improve those sorts of services in the bush. The things we are moving towards will give people in the bush services that were undreamed off 10 years ago. We used to have a standard telephone service and that was the benchmark—getting a telephone line through. That will all change, if we get this legislation through and get the funding, with local call zones. Internet access points throughout the bush could be added. We could increase the megabyte capacity up to 64, if we get this legislation through.What is going to happen if we follow Labor's way, if we do not sell off further and do not get that funding? All those services will not happen. Labor painted a vision of the bush being worse off; the bush will actually be worse off under the regime that Labor wants to establish.Finally, I want to point out some of the direct benefits which will come from the further sale of Telstra. It will provide Australians with the opportunity to take a direct stake in the remaining sections of this great company. We saw in the sale of the first one-third of Telstra how enthusiastically people embraced this opportunity to take part ownership in this great company and be shareholders. That will be extended to more people and also the people who have done so well previously.Probably the greatest advantage of putting this through will be the fact that it will give us a once in a lifetime opportunity to remove a substantial amount of government debt—$40 billion, almost half the government debt. Currently, in each budget, we are paying about $11 billion in interest. That money could be used for schools, roads and hospitals, but it goes in dead money paying debt. That will be halved in one stroke by the passage of this legislation. And the opposition on the other side are denying this.We believe that the full sale would give transparency, that if you have a market driven system, if you have stock holders, if you have the sensitivities of a capital market, then the business will operate a lot more efficiently. This will drive costs and prices down. That is the experience in other countries in the world.Senator Gibbs interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Gibbs, if you care to look at overseas experience, when companies move from monopoly positions to competitive positions, consumers get lower prices and costs and better levels of service. In the end, that is what this is all about—the key issue is competition. All these things are happening because of competition. They are not happening because of ownership issues. Raising it in the way they have in this parliament, the opposition have created a complete furphy.17:58:002929Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—When the government's proposals for the first sale of one-third of Telstra came before the parliament in late 1996, I spoke on the then Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill and made the following comment:The government's proposal to sell off Telstra is . . . another disastrous piece of legislation—a piece of legislation that will do irreparable harm to the economic and social infrastructure of Australia. I deliberately use the words `to sell off Telstra' because that is what this government has in mind. Notwithstanding that the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill currently before the Senate proposes the one-third privatisation of Telstra, we know that the real agenda of the government is the total privatisation, the total sale of Telstra.There is no doubt that the comments I made at that time have been borne out by the actions of this government since that first one-third sale. This is a government that has duplicity—and, I would suggest, deception—as its hallmark. You do not have to take my word for that; you only have to recall what Senator Harradine said only a couple of weeks ago when he indicated that you cannot believe this government, you cannot believe some of the ministers of this government: their word is not their bond.We all recall that, prior to the 1996 election when the coalition was elected to government, the position they put to the people was to sell only one-third of Telstra. They claimed they had no real intention to sell all of Telstra. We raised concerns when that legislation came before the parliament—to which I have just alluded in my opening remarks—but we were told that our fears were groundless and that we should not have been debating the full sale of Telstra, because all the government was proposing was the sale of one-third of Telstra. We were accused of being unnecessarily pessimistic or unnecessarily concerned about the future of Telstra.Having achieved that first goal, the government then set about, in their first term of office, laying the groundwork for the full sale of Telstra. Just as I believe they deceived the people at that time, they continue to seek to do so now; but, of course, their deception will no longer work.The government claimed, back in 1996, that they had a mandate for the one-third sale of Telstra. Whilst we acknowledged—and I acknowledged at the time of that debate—that the government had won the election and obtained a significant majority of seats in the House of Representatives, it was abundantly clear from the results of that election that a majority of people did not vote for the government in the Senate. What was particularly important in that election was that the government had put before the people their proposal to sell one-third of Telstra. Whilst clearly many people voted for the government in the House of Representatives election, when it came to the Senate election a majority of people actually voted for the parties that were on the record as being absolutely and fundamentally opposed to the sale of Telstra. In excess of 50 per cent of the public owners of Telstra—that is, the people of Australia—voted for parties that were on the record as saying that they would oppose the one-third sale of Telstra when it came before the Senate. In contrast, only 43 per cent of people voted for the coalition in the Senate. Indeed, the coalition's vote in the Senate was substantially lower than what they achieved in the House of Representatives.The only conclusion one can draw from those statistics is that people did think about their votes and, whilst they were prepared to vote the coalition into government by giving them a majority in the House of Representatives, they also sent a strong message to the government—and to this parliament—that they did not support all of the government's agenda and, in particular, I submit, they did not support the sell-off of Telstra.The government claimed that they had a mandate—they have used this term `mandate' continually whenever they find themselves in a position of trying to sell a policy that a majority of the people have not supported and when there is substantial opposition from this side of the chamber. Of course the government did achieve their objective of selling one-third of Telstra, but they achieved it on the back of the votes of two Independents in this chamber. One of them—a so-called Independent—had been elected in 1993 representing the Labor Party. If the true representation of parties in the Senate had been reflected in the vote taken on the one-third sale of Telstra, we would not be here today debating this legislation, because the government would never have succeeded in getting their one-third sale up in the first placeWe still find today the government hoping to get their further sale through by achieving the votes of the Independents again and no doubt hoping that they can rely upon the vote of a senator elected originally to represent the Labor Party and one who was not re-elected at the last election.The government have also claimed that the successful share float of one-third of Telstra proved that their decision to part-privatise was correct. They argued, `The people bought the shares, therefore our policy must have been correct.' I put it to the Senate that there are very good reasons why the Australian population purchased those shares, but they do not necessarily endorse the government's policy of privatisation. The shares were floated on the market and were open to the public, who of course subscribed to become part-owners of the most successful public utility in this country.It was because of Telstra's very nature—that it was and still remains, albeit not in total public ownership, a public utility—that ordinary people had enough confidence in the security and the gilt-edged nature of the government's backing and public ownership of Telstra that they were prepared to invest in it. They were not buying shares in some newly listed prospecting company. They were not taking a major gamble on the share market by purchasing those shares; they were buying shares in a successful, secure, publicly owned enterprise.Let's not have any of this nonsense that, simply because Australians took the opportunity when it was offered to them to purchase those shares, somehow that was overwhelming endorsement for the privatisation of the enterprise, because at the subsequent election last year, what happened? The government went to the people and indicated that it would sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra. What was the result of the last election? The government won the election on the basis of winning a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, but a majority of the public did not support the coalition parties at the ballot box. The Labor Party obtained the highest number of votes of any of the major parties. In particular, in the Senate, where again the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens were on the record as saying that they were opposed to any further sale of Telstra, the Labor Party, the Greens and the Democrats combined obtained in excess of 50 per cent of the vote. I would suggest that even the people in Tasmania who voted for Senator Harradine had in their minds that he—whilst having supported the first one-third sale of Telstra—had indicated very strongly on the public record that he was not a supporter of complete privatisation. The government has no right at all to claim a mandate for selling off a further 16 per cent of Telstra, let alone the remaining 51 per cent that would still be in public ownership if the 16 per cent sale were achieved.The government has also been deceptive in its approach, just as it was the first time around. In the policy that it put to the people at the last election, and I quote from an executive summary of its telecommunications policy, it said:The Coalition will:. . . . . . . . .Legislate to provide that until an independent inquiry certifies that Telstra's service levels are adequate, there will be no further sell-down of the government's 51 per cent share.Once the Minister's new power has been created, give all Australians a further opportunity to share in the ownership of a further 16% of Telstra into private hands (to take the proportion of Telstra in private ownership to 49%).It is very clear from the coalition's document that it was saying there would be no further sell-down of the government's 51 per cent share after the 16 per cent had been offered, and that the legislation would provide for an independent inquiry. But what do we have in this legislation? We have a mechanism whereby, if the bill is approved and becomes law, a further 16 per cent of Telstra can be sold. And then simply by virtue of the minister's holding an inquiry, the trip mechanism would work and the remaining 51 per cent of Telstra could be sold off—with no need to bring before the parliament any further legislation relating to that further sale.I ask this question: why are the government adopting this approach of putting their first proposal up to sell one-third of Telstra, seeking and obtaining approval of the parliament, and then, stage two, putting up the proposal to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra to take it to 49 per cent private ownership and seeking approval for that from the parliament, leaving 51 per cent still in public ownership, but then, in order to achieve the final sale of the remaining 51 per cent—the percentage that, however slim, is still in majority public ownership—not having a further debate in this parliament, not having further scrutiny of the legislation, but just having an inquiry established by the minister?HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That is appalling.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is appalling, Senator. It seems that you can have endless parliamentary debate to sell 49 per cent but in order to sell the majority share—51 per cent—all you have to do is have an inquiry. You set up the device of having a trip mechanism in the legislation—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—A trick mechanism?HX5Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Yes, a trick mechanism—I hope the Hansard includes both words. You set up a trip mechanism in the legislation in order to bring that about.In my remaining few minutes I would like to turn to a couple of other issues. One thing that we know, that the government know and that they are going to hear about on Saturday next week in New South Wales is that the coalition's privatisation proposals are not supported by the majority of the Australian population. I travel around rural and regional New South Wales and I constantly hear the message that the bush has had enough. They have had enough of privatisation, of economic rationalism, of reductions in, if not complete closure of, public services and of foreign ownership—irrespective of which political philosophy those changes may have emanated from. They have had enough and they do not want any more. What they particularly do not want is the sell-off of fundamental public utilities that people in the bush rely on and often have difficulty in accessing.They have had enough of this sort of bribery: `We'll give you a heritage fund or an environmental fund or we'll throw a few more dollars into your state to get your senators to support the sale of Telstra.' And they will not cop this bribery of the so-called `social bonus', just as they will not cop the bribe that has been put out by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mrs Chikarovski, to try to sell off the electricity industry in New South Wales. What have they offered? One thousand dollars worth of free shares. It seems that the coalition parties, whether at the federal level or the state level, have picked up on the concept that you can sell off your great public utilities simply by trying to bribe the electorate in that way. The message is coming loud and clear—I know Senator Coonan is hearing it and I know she is going to hear it on Saturday even louder—that people in rural and regional New South Wales in particular, but throughout Australia, have had enough of these sorts of government sell-offs. Of course, in the end they will be the ones who suffer.The great thing about Telstra is that it is, notwithstanding some of the concerns we have which have been enunciated in this debate, a great Australian public utility. It has the opportunity to continue to provide modern telecommunications services to all Australians, particularly to remote areas. But if it is sold off there is no doubt that the focus will shift dramatically. It will shift to the bottom line profit, and CSOs, community service obligations, or any thoughts about social responsibilities will disappear.18:19:002932Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I am pleased to follow Senator Forshaw in this debate because, particularly in the last part of his contribution, he was exactly right in all that he said. Tonight I will provide some documentation which backs up every word that Senator Forshaw was putting on the record. He and I do not always agree on everything, but tonight he was right on the ball.I want to do that by reading from a number of documents. One is from the National Farmers Federation, another is from Senator Boswell and another one is from the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia. Each one of those documents underlines exactly what was being said by Senator Forshaw, and that is that the bush is sick and tired of privatisation. Not only that, but it is sick and tired of the debate which threatens its very communication and its ability to communicate.While the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia is a very independent body, NFF at times does not appear to be as independent as that. So when one sees the NFF bagging the government, one's eyes open wide and one's ears prick because it does not happen very often. But in a news release dated 9 March this year and titled `Parliament must deliver on telecommunications', the National Farmers Federation does just that—it bags the government at great length. I think what it is really saying is that the government must deliver on telecommunications because, as far as the Democrats are concerned, we certainly would want to deliver on telecommunications for the bush. We will be moving a number of amendments along those lines to try to get some fairness back into the debate and into the bill before us.Let me read some of the things that the NFF said. It addresses first of all the Senate committee and it says:. . . the Senate Committee inquiring into the sale of Telstra has failed to address issues of major concern for telecommunications users in rural and regional Australia.It criticises the committee but, as you read on, you see that what it is really criticising is the government's failure after the sale of the first third of Telstra to deliver on its promises—out of 36 commitments it gave it has delivered on only two.The NFF gives the government about one-tenth of a tick for delivering on two of 36 promises that it made either during the election or when it was selling the first third of Telstra. Let me read a little more of what Doctor Wendy Craik says in the news release:The tendering scheme for the Universal Service Obligation has been included in the Act since 1997, and there are still no guidelines, even though other carriers have indicated their commitment to tender for the USO.We are also disappointed with the recommendation relating to the development of the `prescribed criteria.'The inclusion of 64 kbps digital data service was a core—not a non-core—Coalition election commitment, and yet, five months later, it has still not been implemented.Another election commitment, to tighten Customer Service Guarantee issues, has also still not been implemented.The Government released the delayed Australian Communications Authority report in January this year, but the promised further consultation on these issues has still not taken place. The CSG is the key instrument for the quality of service issues that are of paramount importance to rural and regional Australia.Here is the crunch:NFF has provided the Government with a list of 36 issues based on its election commitments, which must be addressed in order to provide equity in the provision of telecommunications for country Australians.So far, only two issues on the list—the appointment of directors with rural backgrounds to the board of Telstra, and the establishment of the National Bandwidth Taskforce—have been implemented.That is two out of 36. Senator Forshaw was right on the ball, but you do not have to take Senator Forshaw's word for it. You do not have to take my word for it; take the word of the NFF. They are not ones to kick the government. When they do, I really take notice because, if they are criticising the government, there must be something radically wrong. That is the NFF.Let me go to a report of some comments made by Senator Boswell. These were made on 31 March 1998—that is the date on the AAP report that I have here—so perhaps Senator Boswell has changed his opinion. I would like to know because one of the things he said a year ago was that the National Party would not support its coalition partner's bill unless it got the backing of the National Farmers Federation and other major rural groups.Well, Senator Boswell, the most recent press release from the NFF does not sound like backing for the government's position. In fact, as I read it, it sounds like a very severe bagging. I am not sure whether the National Party is supporting the Liberal Party in this at all because 12 months ago Senator Boswell was saying that, if the NFF and other major rural groups did not back the government's position, then the National Party would not either.I am sure that during the debate Senator Boswell will come in and clarify for us the National Party's position, and whether he is sticking to what he said 12 months ago, and what he reiterated during the election campaign in Queensland, I understand. If I am incorrect in that, then he should come and tell us. But certainly on 31 March 1998, the position of the National Party and Senator Boswell was that, unless they got the backing of major rural groups, then they would not support the government's position.I will add a couple of other comments from Senator Boswell, because I think they are very telling. He said that he wanted to see all of the commitments given by the Prime Minister, and given by Senator Richard Alston yesterday, set in cement in legislation. I guess we have the legislation before us but I wonder whether it is cement-like enough, whether it has sufficient consistency, or whether it is solid enough for Senator Boswell. It will be interesting for us to see just where the National Party votes in this debate, given Senator Boswell's strong words 12 months ago. I guess we can wait for that.Another comment of his was that Telstra service had not been up to speed. I can tell Senator Boswell that if he thinks that selling a third of Telstra has reduced the ability of this parliament to make sure that Telstra is up to speed—that is, its service is up to speed—selling more of Telstra, and eventually the lot of it, will not be a case of whether Telstra service is up to speed; it will be a case of whether there is any service at all to rural and regional Australia. That will be the problem.I am not even sure that legislation set in cement will be adequate to ensure the community service obligations which have been trumpeted as being fixed and in place by the minister for communications. We look forward to a contribution from Senator Boswell as to what the National Party is going to do. Given that the National Farmers Federation has clearly bagged the government's position, it may be that he is going to have to live up to what he told us and not support the legislation. But, then again, I suppose pigs might fly, as it is sometimes said.However, let us not just leave it to the NFF. Let us go to the Isolated Children's Parents Association, because in a very comprehensive submission to me, and I presume to other parties in this place, they place on record their criticisms of the government's position and of the services that they are not getting. I guess we can talk about the services they are getting but the services that they are not getting are very serious. I will read a little of their submission. I agree with what they say.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.2934Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Before the break I was speaking about the bagging that various rural bodies have given the government's proposals on Telstra. I quoted from the National Farmers Federation and underlined what they said with the comment that they do not normally criticise the government, but in this case they did very severely and gave the government quite a serious bagging. I also mentioned that Senator Boswell had said 12 months ago that if this happened then the National Party could not support their coalition partner's bill. I know Senator Boswell has some explanation so it will be good to get that a little later in this debate.I thought that I should put on the record that the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia, in their submission, were also very critical of the government and felt rather cynical about promises that had been made and not kept.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—If you pass the legislation you will get the promises.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am sorry you are so upset, Ron. We need to place on the record what these bodies are saying, because they are not normally critics of the government. That is what makes their criticism so important. Perhaps if the government listened to what was being said by these various rural bodies their legislation would be vastly improved, and perhaps they might even decide not to do what they have been proposing, because that would be the real solution to the problem.Let me read from the Isolated Children's Parents Association submission. They say some very important things. For instance:The quality of communications has a vital influence on the lives of isolated people, and access to telecommunication networks can help alleviate isolation.I can certainly underline that, having lived in western Queensland for many years. I know just how important telecommunications are in remote areas, particularly having used from time to time the Flying Doctor network. What a great boon that was to isolated people for so many years. However, the ICPA says that there are issues which they need to have dealt with, in particular:The following are communications issues affecting families living in rural and remote areas of Australia and have resulted from resolutions carried at our annual federal ICPA conferences.They then list those issues. I will give you a copy of this later; I will not have time to read it all into the record.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I actually negotiated with them to get the deal.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—It is interesting that you say that, Senator Boswell. I will read to you what they say. If you negotiated this then you have to explain this comment:Isolated families feel as though they have been slighted by the government's social bonus package.I do not know about your negotiations; it seems there is some problem with whatever you did negotiate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Woodley, you should direct your comments through the chair.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I should, too, and I apologise sincerely. I was provoked though, you will admit. I will in future.Let me read a little more because I think that will explain the problems that I see:Isolated families living in the outer extended zone will receive very little benefit from this social bonus. They will still have timed calls to their service town, their school of distance education, their children boarding at the local boarding facilities, their local doctor, their local banks, their local Internet provider. The list goes on to include virtually every service and social contact that is accessible, untimed, to our urban counterparts.What they are talking about is not cost; they say the issue is one of equity, of comparable benefits and of implementing and enforcing solid legislation, reassuring isolated rural and remote residents that their interests can be protected by the universal service obligation and that they need not fear further privatisation and sale of Telstra. My answer to them is: you need not fear further privatisation if we do not have it. Then you will not have to worry about whether or not the legislation for universal service obligations will work.The problem that the NFF was pointing out was that, with the sale of one-third of Telstra originally in 1997, there were 36 promises made by the coalition and of those only two have been delivered. That is the problem that people in the bush are highlighting. If the legislation and the universal service obligations were fixed in concrete, as the NFF has requested, they would not have the problems. But they do have problems with what the government is proposing.The ICPA does not accept Telstra's argument that granting untimed calls to rural and remote customers will cause system congestion. They have never presented any evidence to support their claim, and that is why the ICPA is calling—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—When did the ICPA make this statement?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I will give you a copy of it later. It was on 8 March 1999. The ICPA policy is that calls within the customer's extended zone, between their zone and their neighbouring extended zone, and between the customer and their service centre be untimed—in other words, be a local call. This policy closely parallels how untimed local call pricing works in urban areas. While distances may be much greater in rural and remote zones, the number of accessible local subscribers is vastly reduced.So you can see the problems that ICPA is raising, and of course there are many others in this document which I am happy to table at the end of my speech. I still have a couple of things to read from it.Another concern that they raise is the cost of replacement of decoders in the change to digital satellite transmission. They request that commercial and national television be broadcast from one satellite only in each state, which is most pertinent to Western Australia, so I am not just sticking up for Queensland rural residents but also for Western Australians. It continues:ICPA Australia feels that we should be able to get access to all free-to-air commercial channels that are available from the new satellite delivery system and not just one commercial channel, as it is now. We are of the understanding that there is no technical reason as to why this cannot happen.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—They have. They have got two.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—It looks as though, if you helped them to prepare this, Senator Boswell, you did not do a very good job.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I have not got any communications.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—They came to the Democrats.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—What an absolute waste of time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Woodley, your comments should be addressed through the chair.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I apologise. I am finding it very difficult because there seems to be a bit of noise in the chamber. Maybe I provoked it, so perhaps I should take some of the blame.Let me conclude what I am saying tonight, and that is that it is quite clear that many rural groups in Australia are not happy. I have cited already the National Farmers Federation in their press release of 9 March this year and the Isolated Children's Parents Association in their letter to me dated 8 March this year. Those two groups, amongst others I know, are not happy and do not accept the government's assurances. However, I can give them the assurance that many of the amendments to this legislation which will be moved by the Democrats will deal with the issues they raise and in fact will deliver the services and the assurances that they need. I call on the government and the opposition to support those Democrat amendments. I seek leave to table the document I referred to earlier.Leave granted.19:40:002935Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I seek leave to make a short statement.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—You do not need leave if you are claiming to be misrepresented under standing order 191. The standing order says that you may address those sections of your speech where you have been misquoted or misunderstood.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Before the suspension for dinner, Senator Woodley claimed that the NFF did not support the sale of Telstra and that therefore I was not true to a statement made last year that their support was necessary before I would vote for the bill. I have been misrepresented in the suggestion that I have not been living up to my word. There is no onus on me whatsoever to change my support for the bill because the NFF do support the bill. Senator Woodley has failed to read the full NFF statement of 9 March. The heading is `Parliament must deliver on telecommunications'. That means that the bills must be passed. The statement is effectively calling on senators to pass the Telstra legislation so that the rural inequities can be addressed. It is aimed at senators like Senator Woodley to change their minds and pass the bill so that rural Australians can get the upgrade in telecommunications infrastructure which they need to take them into the next century. Senator Woodley should have read the second paragraph of the statement, which reads: `NFF's Executive Director, Dr Wendy Craik, said the ownership of Telstra was not an issue for the NFF.' It then goes on to say: `The NFF does not have a policy on Telstra's ownership.'Senator Woodley made much of the fact that only two of the 36 issues raised by the NFF had been implemented, according to the NFF's statement. He said that this meant I had to respond and explain why I still supported the bill. The reason for only two out of the 36 so far being achieved is that the bills before us have to pass before the others can be implemented. The NFF needs these bills to pass. I refer to the second last paragraph, which reads:"Most of the other issues on the list have been identified in these five bills before the committee and the parliament," Dr Craik said.The NFF says that the passage of all bills will assist in addressing the telecommunications inequities which exist in rural and regional Australia today. Senator Woodley should read statements thoroughly before he comes in here and acts like a goose and starts to accuse fellow senators of not living up to their earlier stated positions.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Boswell, you should withdraw that imputation against another senator.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I withdraw.19:43:002936MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—The Senate this evening and for some days has been debating a package of bills which clearly separates regulation of the telecommunications industry from ownership of Telstra. In terms of ownership, a further tranche of Telstra, 16 per cent, is to be sold, with the rest awaiting the trigger of the findings of an inquiry. These bills provide for further sale, impose ownership restrictions and provide significant regulatory policy matters in the form of a customer service guarantee. These bills have much in common with those discussed in this place prior to the election. Importantly, they also reflect the discussion and respond to the concerns raised both in this place and in the community.The main bill we have before us is the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , which will allow the government to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra and ultimately take private ownership in Telstra to 49 per cent. The bill also provides a mechanism for the remaining sale being conditional on an independent review of Telstra's service standards, which is a very important caveat for those in rural Australia. The foreign ownership provision of the Telstra Corporation Act remains to ensure that the existing 35 per cent total and five per cent individual foreign ownership limits continue to apply to the proportion of non-Commonwealth shares following the sale of each tranche. This means that limits will continue to apply, no matter how subsequent share sales are structured. It also provides the requirement for Telstra's headquarters, chairman and the majority of directors to be Australian, irrespective of the ownership of Telstra. Similarly preserved are the accrued rights of Telstra employees.A number of bills are similarly amended to support this legislation. I do not propose to take the time of the Senate, in what has been a very long list of speakers, reiterating a lot of the argument that has gone before the Senate. I wanted to spend my time here tonight, which will be really quite brief, talking about the need for this sale to go through. When I first came into this place, I objected to one of my colleagues when an idea that was very contrary to the views I held was put. I was told, `You may not agree with a view, but you are in a place where everyone is entitled to put their view.' That is a principle I have lived by in the long period I have been here. But listening to the debate on these bills, I must say that the opponents of the legislation really strain my tolerance and credulity. They are not in the real commercial world at all. What we are going to get here is the completion of the inevitable: Telstra is going to be sold. And it has to be sold, because the Labor Party brought it about. From the moment they allowed competition to enter the communications market, the sale of Telstra was absolutely inevitable.We are going to provide that, even though it is sold, the interests of the community, in both rural and urban areas, are protected. And Telstra is going to be a great company—just as the sale we have had already has been a marvellous success. Over 1.6 million Australians bought into the first float. For over half a million of those it was their first foray into the share market. A staggering 92 per cent of Telstra's employees have put their money where their mouth is and bought an interest in the company.I just want to take a moment to talk about the advantages of further sale. As I said before, it is essential and it is inevitable. Once the previous Labor government agreed to competitors entering the market, the decision was irrevocably taken by them, by the Labor Party, to sell all of Telstra. There can be no other commercial outcome. That is a fundamental point which the Senate has to accept.We heard a lot of argument against the further sale of Telstra, and the kindest thing to say about it is that it is an emotional diatribe—tugging at the heartstrings of the uninformed but entirely out of touch with commercial reality. Even the Labor Party know that. I am not an economic rationalist, but I say absolutely that a government in a mature economy should not be in any commercial service that is not a natural monopoly. That is the testing point. If you are running a monopoly, then it is the government's duty to run it. But the provision of services within the community where there can be competition is a field that the government have a regulatory role in, not a participatory role. They should not be playing the commercial game, because they do not have the skills.The communications area has long changed from being just a phone pinned to a wall in a big, heavy wooden box to being something which goes to broadband communications and is rapidly becoming an essential part of everyone's life—with the growth of the Internet, fax machines, and all the rest of it. Communications is an area where competition will dramatically lower costs and improve service. Do the Labor Party and the Democrats really want to go back to the days of the old PMG and the services we had then, or even go back five years? I was very heavily involved in the Rural Telephone Subscribers Association in Queensland in the 1970s and 1980s, because the service to country areas was just so poor. In rural towns and in hamlets, particularly on properties, getting support from the PMG for a phone was just impossible.I met a person in Cunnamulla who owned two sheep properties. He and his wife were running both of them. It was essential that he had a phone on both, because they were moving between the two of them and his wife was often separated from him. He told me it was something like two or three years before he could get one phone on, let alone two. No-one wants to go back to those days. No-one wants to go back even five years to what we have discussed. Telstra has improved. It is a long way short of perfect, but it has improved because of the competitive elements that have come into play. But it is part of the urban mythology that somehow or other today's bush subscribers are doing very well and you simply could not degrade that service by selling off Telstra.My wife and I run a reasonably large cattle property, and communications are vital to us. We have a radio phone there. It is served by a solar cell and it is a very unreliable piece of equipment. It has a very deceptive nature. If you ring up a phone in town and the line is down, you will get an engaged signal or you will get some indication that the phone service is not working. Our phone in the country just keeps ringing and ringing, and someone ringing in while the phone is inoperative thinks there is no-one there to attend it.We sell cattle and, more importantly, we have a rather large interest in selling herd bulls. Telstra, quite bluntly, have cost us a great deal of money through incompetent and inadequate service. We do rely on the phone. If a cattle buyer is coming down from the Gulf or somewhere, they ring up and, if you do not answer that phone, there are always competitors and they will go somewhere else. Maybe the buyer or the prospective buyer is coming south and they want to call on whoever is available at the time they come down.I would like to tell a little story about what happened as recently as 12 months ago on one of the many occasions that the phone was inoperative. My wife came back to Brisbane and rang up Telstra's Complaints. The woman said, `I cannot take this complaint.' My wife asked why, and she said, `You have to ring on the phone that is faulty.' My wife said, `I can't do that, because it's not working.' `Then you must go to your neighbour. I can't take your call.' Well, that is probably half a day's work driving to the neighbour's property, finding if they are at home and not out in the distant paddocks, and then driving back!LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—And trusting that their phone was working!YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—As Senator Patterson said, probably their phone was inoperative too. This is an idiotic level of service. Ultimately my wife said, `Look, I am the subscriber and I am ringing from my Brisbane home,' and eventually we got through. I came down to Canberra last night, we have not been sitting for a week and I tried to phone my wife, but my phone in Canberra is inoperative. My wife has just come out of hospital, and so I was a bit concerned about that. When I got here this morning I rang Complaints at Telstra and said, `I want to report a service difficulty.' They said, `Wait a moment,' and they tested it and said that, yes, the line was inoperative. So I asked, `When will this be fixed?' I was expecting it to be fixed by lunchtime, because Canberra really is not an isolated part of Australia. They said, `Oh, we will try as a matter of priority to get it through, because you are a senator, by Friday.' I said, `By Friday! Which week?' They said, `This week.' If you think that is good service, I am sorry, but I do not. I would expect that phone to be fixed by midday today.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Because you are a senator, though.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—Yes, because I was a senator, I think I got the promise of it being finished by this week. If I was an ordinary citizen, I suppose I would still be waiting in the queue.It was only a couple of weeks ago that I was in Hong Kong. I recognise that Hong Kong is a special case, but there are four phone companies in Hong Kong and they all make enormous profits. They have just gone over to the very latest digital mobile phone technology, and it seems to me that everyone in Hong Kong owns a digital phone. They must have the highest ownership in the world. At the end of the month of February, they moved to the new system, and all four providers of the telephonic service in Hong Kong are giving the latest digital phones away because the competition is so intense. I recognise that Hong Kong, because of its geography, is a special case and that these are mobile phones, not hard-wiring into the house.There are many great advantages for the Australian community if we move to the full sale of Telstra—and, as I say, it is inevitable. It really is a question of the maturity of the Senate as to whether we recognise this and get on with the job rather than play mindless political games of saying, `No, you can't do that, because you are going to deprive the community of a benefit which they enjoy.' They will enjoy far more benefits if they sell it. Telstra is going to be sold, and it is in Australia's interests and in the interests of all Australians for that sale to be quick and efficient and not protracted, and that we not live in a no-man's-land for ages.The longer we fool around, the worse the performance of Telstra will become and, more importantly, the sale price for the taxpayer will go down, and go down dramatically—as the competition builds on their strengths—and that will create all sorts of trouble. This is no time at all for the Senate to be supporting failed, late-18th-century economic policies. Let us get some policies that relate to Australia in the 21st century and support this bill.19:55:002939O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Given that we have seen the sale of one-third of Telstra—and the less than 10 per cent of the Australian population who bought the shares have reaped probably a 125 per cent profit on their investment in a fairly short time—and given that the sale of the second tranche of Telstra will lead to a further windfall for the financial sector of somewhere around $1 billion, and also seeing that the government, in selling all of Telstra, will forgo its share of what will this year be an expected profit of something like $3.8 billion, the government's $671 million one-off package for rural and regional Australia pales into insignificance. But I want to talk tonight about the disadvantages which accrue to my state of Tasmania out of the privatisation of Telstra.There is no doubt that, compared with the position that the Labor Party took at the recent federal election, Tasmania will be further disadvantaged. Indeed, with Telstra out of public hands totally, rural and regional Australia, including Tasmania, will be cut loose and the slim thread of the community service obligation that the government says will be protected will fray and ultimately break under the pressure of privatisation and the pressures that a privatised Telstra will put on the public purse to fund that community service obligation.We heard Senator MacGibbon's discussion about some of the problems about Telstra in the past and the attention to servicing the copper wire network around the country. It is quite a different proposition to service a mobile network—whether it be in Hong Kong, which I imagine would be fairly simple to service—than it is to service a nationwide copper network around the country and across Bass Strait to my state of Tasmania. Indeed, I noted in the press recently an article talking about comparisons of phone costs between Australia and other countries, and at the head of that list were countries such as Finland and Sweden. The landmass involved in those countries is minute compared with that of Australia—and, indeed, I suspect that, compared with my state of Tasmania, Sweden and Finland are minor landmasses.Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that part of the cost of maintaining the copper wire network, which would affect the cost of calls, is related to the size of this continent. If we are going to reflect in any proper public debate a real assessment of what it costs Australians to have an effective, nationwide copper wire network, then we have to recognise the fact that this is a large country with, excepting the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane region, a dispersed population. I hope the government is not saying that if you are not in those regions you are deserving of a lesser service, but indeed it is my suspicion that privatising Telstra will in fact lead to a lesser service ultimately for all of the country.I started to talk about Tasmania, and I will go back to that. But before I do, let me say that Senator MacGibbon's comments—that privatisation was inevitable once there was competition established in the telecommunications sector—seemed to me to be an argument which went to a point and then ceased. In other words, it was not a completed argument. He simply alleged that somehow it was impossible to have Telstra existing in public hands whilst there was a competitive environment. Frankly that position, argued somewhat inadequately by Senator MacGibbon, is not a position which can necessarily be borne out by fact.Telstra, as a government entity, has developed the copper wire network around this country for many years. To the extent that the public purse has funded it, it has been extended because of the very fact that Telstra was a public entity. It has also been extended no doubt, in part, because Telstra was a monopoly and, by acquiring wealth from the services it provided, it could plough that wealth back into extending the network and modernising the technology that underpins the telecommunications system. Australia, compared with, for example, the United States, has a very efficient telecommunications system.I am not saying that the system is perfect. There was recently a debate here in the Senate about the Casualties of Telstra cases. There is no doubt that the management of Telstra did not do the right thing by those people; nevertheless, what we have is an entity in public control. Because it is in public control, those cases were given an airing within the parliament. Those cases were pursued by senators in this place, to the extent that it is possible that there will ultimately be a solution to all of those problems. But let me suggest that, had Telstra not been a publicly owned entity, those cases would not have seen the light of day. The officials of Telstra would not have been put under pressure by senators from both sides of this chamber to do the right thing. Those Casualties of Telstra would have been fighting a monolithic corporation with the resources of millions of dollars behind it and would have had a much harder time in pursuing justice in their cases. So public ownership was a benefit in those cases.Going back to the situation in Tasmania, contrast the government's position with that which the Labor Party took in the last election. The government's promise to Tasmania was that they would sell Telstra. There was a statement that there would be a national package to deal with disadvantage to rural and regional areas—pure and simple. I have already outlined that that is a national package totalling $671 million. Labor's proposal to Tasmanian voters was that Tasmania become a single local call zone. At the moment there are three local call zones in Tasmania. There are no technological reasons why that has to be. You can dial between Melbourne—and other parts of Victoria, not just Melbourne—and Tasmania without dialling an STD code. Already the facility is there to have a local call region—certainly in Tasmania but for a greater part of Australia—without the need for a 10-digit number as is required for most STD codes. Technologically there is no problem with it.The issue is: what would the benefit be to Tasmania of a single local call zone? Quite simply, the benefit would be the saving to every subscriber on their calls made to other parts of the state. It does not take much imagination to work out that if every subscriber in Tasmania were to save $10, $20, $30 or $40 per year—and I suggest that is a very conservative figure—there would be millions of dollars saved by households and business. Access across the state to the Internet by a local call would be made easily available and cost efficient. At the moment, if you do not have a provider in your local call zone then you have to pay extra to link up to the Internet—if the line technology is there. Labor's proposal for a single local call zone in Tasmania offered consumers and business a great range of opportunities and access to electronic commerce, email and the Internet at great savings.I suggest that, if one were to do the figures, the proportion of the government's so-called rural and regional package—the $671 million package—that would go to Tasmania would pale into insignificance after a relatively short time. Of course, why should Labor's package simply be offered to Tasmania? Once Tasmania moved to a single local call zone, there is no doubt that there would then be an extension of local call zones in other parts of Australia—in rural and regional Australia and in cities such as Sydney where, as I understand it, in Penrith you are not in the same local call zone as other parts of the city.The potential with government control of the entity—not competition but government control—was for benefits to be extended. When the business is controlled by the public, it is government's role to ensure that the benefits of technology and the benefits of profitability go back to all of the customers and not to just a few. Unfortunately, with the privatisation of Telstra, there is no doubt that, apart from that slim thread of community service obligations that the government is pursuing, the benefits will flow to a small proportion of Australians who are shareholders and no doubt to those who occupy the parts of the country where competition is the keenest—in other words, Sydney, Melbourne, perhaps parts of Brisbane, perhaps Canberra and perhaps some of the other central business districts around the country.So business will benefit. Not only will that part of the business sector that is in the financial services sector and stands to gain part of the billion dollars that it will cost to privatise the rest of Telstra benefit, but those other parts of business will benefit at the expense of rural and regional Australia, and most likely at the expense of the ordinary household subscriber. Frankly, Labor's proposition in the Tasmanian context was a proposition which holds more benefit for Australians as a whole than the privatisation prospect.How did Labor fare with that proposal? Liberal senators opposite argued the government's case against Labor's proposition. In the main, there was a fairly clean and open debate in the electorate, the outcome being, of course, that Labor won all five of the House of Representatives seats in Tasmania and achieved something approaching 42 per cent of the vote in the Senate; just a hair's breath short of three full quotas in the Senate. What was the government's fate? Obviously, they lost two seats—two of the five that they held—and they had an extremely low Senate vote, to the extent that they returned only two senators.As I said, the election was, in the main, clean. There was perhaps one example of slick practice in the campaign. I recall that it happened to be conducted over the radio when Labor's candidate for Bass was, I think, on the phone talking to the radio station about capital gains tax. Following her contribution on the radio there was a telephone call from a gentleman who said he was holidaying in Tasmania. He was travelling through the state. He came from Albury. He had a personal experience to relate about death duties. He said he was only passing through Launceston at the time on his way south. The funny thing was that his voice was quite similar to that of a gentleman on the staff of the member for Bass, Warwick Smith. Mr Smith had a significant number of his staff in the vicinity of Launceston during the campaign period. When the voice was identified as being that of Mr Alastair Kinloch, the media contacted Mr Smith's office. Mr Kinloch, who was definitely in Launceston at the time, was not available for comment.I had a look at the Parliament House Communications Directory tonight, and Mr Kinloch's name appears on page 35. I did not note his extension number, but it is in the ministerial wing, so I guess he has moved on from Warwick Smith's office. But that appeared to me, at least on the surface, to be the only incident of any note which attracted media attention during the campaign and which one might say was slick practice or part of a dirty tricks campaign. Indeed, at the declaration of the poll in Bass it was conceded that it had been a relatively clean campaign and that the best campaign and the best candidate had won. I think that was the case in most cases. I say that because what I want to emphasise is that the Tasmanian electorate considered the views of all of the parties when they voted in the election.Of course, one of the senators that they returned was Senator Harradine. I might say that Senator Harradine was elected without a quota, but I guess that is often the case with senators from the major parties, as well as those from the minor parties, where preferences, both within party tickets and outside party tickets, often elect senators. Where did Senator Harradine's preferences come from? The Liberal Party. A significant number of preferences from the Liberal Party also carried my colleague Senator Denman across the line, electing Senator Denman in the fifth of the six spots in Tasmania.In that situation, why was the government giving their preferences to Senator Harradine? One could make all sorts of statements but one certainly could not say that it was because they thought Senator Harradine was in the car, as it were, on the sale of Telstra. On 28 September in the Financial Review, Michelle Grattan's column, pages 1 and 4, reports as follows:Independent Senator Brian Harradine yesterday dealt a blow to the prospect of a re-elected coalition selling Telstra by declaring he would oppose legislation for the full sale of the telecommunications giant.I will not read all of the article—it is there on the public record. There is no doubt that in relation to Senator Harradine's position—which he circulated to the Tasmanian electorate by household circular; it went right around the electorate before the election—everyone knew what they were voting for. The government knew what they were preferencing when they gave him their preferences. He was re-elected on a platform which was basically that there certainly would be no sale of all of Telstra but that he did not totally rule out the sale of a further 16 per cent. As far as I am aware, Senator Harradine is a man of honour, and I would expect that he would honour the promise he made to the Tasmanian electorate. That is, he cannot vote for anything more than the sale of something less than the balance of the majority of Telstra—in other words, 16 and some decimal points per cent of the balance of Telstra—ensuring that 50 plus per cent of the telecommunications giant remains in public hands.The government might respond by saying, `We didn't really have a choice. We had to preference someone and Senator Harradine was the only candidate we were prepared to preference.' The fact of the matter is that there was no other credible candidate in Tasmania that they could preference who was prepared to support the privatisation of Telstra. So, when you analyse it, about 30 per cent of the Tasmanian electorate voted for the privatisation of Telstra. When you aggregate the other parties, including Senator Harradine's vote—and I have not taken from the 30 per cent that percentage which went to Senator Harradine—something approaching 70 per cent of the Tasmanian electorate is opposed to the total sale of Telstra. In terms of the position which the Labor Party takes, and certainly Tasmanian senators, we will be opposing the further sale of Telstra knowing that 70 per cent of the Tasmanian electorate supports our position.20:16:002942Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I rise to speak to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill because I believe the bill is about doing good business; it is about good government. It is also about honouring a commitment made at the last election. Senator O'Brien was carrying on about it. It just so happens that the coalition won the election and the Labor Party did not. This government is about, and in the business of, all involved being happy with the outcome. That is what this bill represents. It is not about ideology, as the Democrats would have us believe. It is about good business and good government.The bill is about good business because we are going to get a good price for the 16 per cent sale at this stage, and the rest of it in the future, which will enable us to do so much to assist all Australians. Telstra, like any business, is facing tough competition. We can get a good price for it now, but who's to say we will get a good price in the future. Senators opposite, I am sure, would have us holding on to it and doing nothing. But it is time that things moved on in this country and that is what this government is about.Who is going to provide the funding for Telstra to invest in new technologies and capabilities if Telstra is not sold? If it is kept in complete government hands, would those opposite ask the taxpayers to fund any advancement in our telecommunications system? How would they do it? Why should the taxpayers have to take the risk? What senators opposite would have us do is hold on to Telstra until it can no longer compete and then sell it off. Let me assure them, as anyone in business will, that they will not get a good price for it at that stage. Of course, my colleagues opposite would not understand anything about business. That is one of the reasons they drove the Australian economy just about into the grave when they were in government. By selling Telstra we will be able to retire debt. We cannot go on paying huge interest payments and incurring government debt, like the Labor Party was always wont to do with the high inflation, high interest rate era it went through. It led Australia into debt. We have to repair this debt not only for the sake of the people of today but also for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. Why is it good government to do this? Because we will be able to provide so much for rural and regional Australians. We will have the social bonus of $671 million of which there will be $250-odd million for the National Heritage Trust.I know farmers and graziers out there who are doing it tough. They do not have the cash to do the jobs that need doing with weeds, feral control and so on. They need assistance and help through the likes of the National Heritage Trust and the landcare groups that are also getting assistance. Thankfully, through all the money being provided by the sale of Telstra, many of these things can be done to stop a complete run-down of properties in difficult economic times. With commodity prices low, they would not be able to do this without money being injected into the community.It amazes me that those in this place who pretend to be the guardians of the environment do not support a bill that provides so much for the environment. In the days of Graham Richardson, the Labor Party used to talk strongly about the environment. Now it does not care about it at all. Where does the opposition think the money will come from to look after the environment? Where is it going to come from to look after the telecommunications systems to keep them close to the cutting edge? Of course, $70 million will be made available for rural transaction centres in country towns. There is an opportunity to provide something real and tangible for regional Australia and these centres will provide jobs for the people in those areas.A total of $150 million will be going to the upgrade of a telecommunications network to remote Australians, so they too can have untimed local calls, and $81 million will go to the Regional Telecommunications Infra structure Fund, part of which will aim to provide all Australians with local call access to the Internet. It is all right for those people in the cities that have it. Why shouldn't people in the country have that access as well? Senators opposite would not understand how important it is to have local call access to the Internet. None of them venture from their safe city homes very often to see what is happening in country areas. This will be a great boost for all people in rural and remote Australia—not just businesses, although for them it is an imperative, but for children and students in rural Australia.When I met with local exporters in Geraldton last year, one of the biggest concerns was the lack of local call access to the Internet. The hypocrisy of senators opposite in wanting to block this sale at every avenue, I believe, is quite mind-boggling. Senator O'Brien spoke earlier. He thinks it is such a terrible thing to be selling off Telstra. Of course, he is a member of a party that did not have any qualms about selling off Qantas. He is a member of a party which, when in government, did not have any qualms about selling off the Commonwealth Bank. It did not have even a bit of a worry. In fact, Senator O'Brien's side of the parliament was very happy.Now, because this government wants to continue, to make Telstra very viable, to make it an active, cutting-edge instrumentality for the future, the Labor Party are saying that it should not be done—not for any of the right reasons. They are not saying it for any reason at all. In fact, they cannot understand that we are doing the right thing for the Australian people and for the telecommunications instrumentality of Telstra.Mr Beazley was finance minister and responsible for the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, yet he is now leading—is he leading the party at the moment, or is it Simon Crean or Mr Brereton?—the opposition and trying to do the opposite of what he wanted to do when he was in government. Paul Keating has been on the news a little bit today. As well as his pig interests, he wanted to sell Telstra, and tried. At that stage, Mr Beazley was the deputy to Mr Keating.The up and coming Labor Party people—like Latham and Tanner—know that privatisation is the way to go. They know that if Australia is going to be a great country with a great telecommunications industry, and if we are going to be really competitive on the world stage, we have to privatise government instrumentalities. I do not know why anyone really thinks that government should be in the business of running businesses. It should be in the business of looking after all the people in the community and letting business get on with its own thing and run its enterprises.Virtually every telecommunications company in the world is heading down the path of privatisation. Cuba, Albania, Hungary and South Africa are privatising and bringing in foreign investment. We are doing the right thing by rural and regional Australians. We are going to ensure that they have the best possible telecommunications and are not treated as second-class citizens. That is what the Labor Party will condemn country people to if they block this legislation.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You want to sell Telstra to foreigners.RD4Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILL—When the Labor Party sold the Commonwealth Bank—and Senator Cook was a part of that—they did not ensure anything. We are going to ensure that Telstra will be bound to provide certain levels of services. We have already accepted the Australian Communications Authority's recommendations and strengthened the customer service guarantee to ensure the provision of high quality communication services to all Australians. Senators opposite should read the guarantee. It is on this brochure for anyone who is having connections made, having repairs done or wanting appointments. The penalties are there for Telstra to pay the price if it does not keep up its end. We will ensure the right to continued access to untimed local voice calls for business, charity and residential customers and the right to untimed data calls for residential and charity customers. Phone users will be compensated for inadequate services. There will be protection for residential consumers against failure of service providers to provide services and direct access free of charge to emergency call servicing, and so it goes on.This bill will allow us to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra, bringing the total up to 49 per cent at this stage. Then there will be an independent—I stress, independent—inquiry into Telstra's future, something that we are offering the Australian people which the Labor Party never offered with privatisations when they were in government. If its performance is not up to scratch, there will be no further sale. As a senator who lives in the bush—and I am proud of it—let me assure you that the service is not always that great now when it is in government control. It will be better in private control. I cannot understand the attitude that it will necessarily be any worse under private ownership. So I go back to my original point.This is all about good business. In the past few years, I have had the opportunity to meet with a lot of fantastic small business operators out in country and regional areas. They are not whingeing but are working hard. Some are exporting and some are not. If you speak to them as business people who employ people, they would say, `This is a good business decision.' As a senator for New South Wales, I say that this is a good government decision because all Australians will achieve so much more by the sale of Telstra—up to 49 per cent at this stage, having a look to see whether it is going well, and then the sale of the rest of it afterwards.20:28:002944McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I am very pleased to be able to follow my close colleague Senator Brownhill in this debate, making myself the fourth National Party senator to speak on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . It should be a fair indication to the Senate of the resolve the National Party has to support this bill through the Senate. We are debating the facilitation of the sale by the Commonwealth of shares in Telstra Corporation Ltd so that the Commonwealth will retain 50.1 per cent, the majority shareholding. In other words, we are selling up to 49 per cent to the share market. It is also to facilitate the government's social bonus which is to be funded by the sale of Telstra and, as Senator Brownhill pointed out, to make provision for the establishment of an independent inquiry into Telstra's service performance before the government makes any decision to sell beyond 49 per cent.As we all know only too well, this has been a well-debated piece of legislation. Senator Ian Campbell, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, informs us that this is just about to take the record for legislation debated in the Australian parliament—possibly in the world.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Wait for the GST. The record won't last long!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—This is my point, Senator Sherry. I thought Telstra would have been the best example yet of the obstructionism of the Senate, but you are telling us to wait for the GST. Do you have some more obstruction ahead for the Senate?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No. We are going to oppose the GST.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We have had 37 weeks of Senate committees on the Telstra bill. We debated the one-third to and fro—from the House of Representatives, up here and back again—and then there was the full sale, and now we are discussing the 49 per cent sale. But, Senator Sherry, we have also been to two elections in regard to the privatisation of Telstra. This will take the world record, until Senator Sherry tells us it is going to be surpassed by the tax reform debate.Senator Sherry makes my point superbly by his interjection: this is just another example of the obstructionism of the Senate. It has been well debated within the Labor Party. You have to explain to me how many support Mr Latham and Mr Tanner for the full sale of Telstra. It is even well debated within the Labor Party. We know the views of some of the best intellects in the Labor Party and that they support the government's argument.The bill progresses the government's asset sale policy. As pointed out by Senator Brownhill, it is a policy which was well and truly supported by Labor in government, when they sold the Commonwealth Bank and when they sold Qantas. But the big difference between their privatisation program and ours is that they frittered away the proceeds of those sales. Not a cent went to debt reduction when they sold those very valuable assets that belonged to the people of Australia. They stand over there and tell us of these assets that belong to the people of Australia—how cherished they are in government hands. But they had equally cherished assets, like Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank—in fact I have a list of them all here. There was the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation—what could be a better icon for a government and the Australian people than that? There was the Garden Island docklands, the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline, and so on. When they came to sell those cherished assets, under the same philosophy we are using, they frittered away the funds. It went to recurrent expenditure in the budget; it did not go to retiring debt at all. How could it have? When we came into government, the debt was over $100 million, and we were left with a $10 billion deficit.At least we got an apology from Mr Keating this week. Before you go out, Senator Cook, can you hear me out on this one? We received an apology from Mr Keating in regard to the recession that he knows he visited upon us. He called it a `lacerating recession'. Now is your chance in the parliament to join Mr Keating in that apology, because you joined him in denying that there was a $10 billion deficit. You are on record as saying that. As he walks out the door, we are not going to get an apology from Senator Cook, at least not tonight, but he is one of the more fair and reasonable men on the frontbench. I know I am going to be criticised by my colleagues for saying that. If he sleeps on the matter, we may sooner or later get a similar apology.If former Prime Minister Keating, of all people—and we all know what he was like—is willing to stand up and apologise for the `lacerating recession' visited upon the Australian people, with the frittering of funds, the debt and the deficit, then I think someone like Senator Cook could equally come around and apologise in this chamber. And he has a better chance because he is still in this parliament. The point I am making is that this continues the government's drive for and philosophy of privatisation, and we do not step back from that. Sure, it is a case by case situation. We have no intention, nor any desire, to privatise Australia Post but, on a case by case basis, we believe that there are benefits in privatising Telstra—none less than the fact that the Labor Party introduced competition into the market. Telstra simply cannot compete under its existing structure.Although it was quite a good decision by the Labor government to introduce competition into the communications market, one of the evils of a government monopoly and of not introducing competition is monopoly pricing; and that is what we got under Telstra. Since we have freed up the market, phone prices have fallen. International phone prices are falling, and domestic phone prices are set not just to fall but to plummet. So monopoly pricing would be abolished.With regard to customer service, many of the Labor Party speakers, this evening and throughout the course of the day, have raised constituents' concerns about delays in connections. They were vain attempts to make a connection between the delay in someone's phone being connected and privatisation.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It is getting worse. That is the point.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Sherry, you have a short memory. Anyone who knows Telstra from years back, when they were 100 per cent owned by government, knows that they were a hopelessly inefficient and frustrating organisation. In fact they have got better, and they will have to get better because, in the mobile phone industry alone, Optus is already competing with them and there are at least four other organisations set to come into the mobile phone market—and if you think that will not knock the customer service of Telstra into shape, then you are wrong. They have a shareholding responsibility to meet. One.Tel, Hutchison Telecoms, AAPT and Ausphone are set to come into the market—and that is just the beginning. It is a very lucrative market, and Telstra cannot afford to have a disreputable customer service regime. That is what competition brings.In the short time I have left, I want to focus on debt reduction. We all know about the social bonus coming for the rural and regional sector. That is something the National Party proudly negotiated directly with the Prime Minister. Senator Boswell, Senator Brownhill, Senator Sandy Macdonald, Senator O'Chee and I went into the Prime Minister's office. He did not have his new chesterfields at that time—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That's shocking! He's your Prime Minister. You should not explain things like that.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We are happy to have directly negotiated with the Prime Minister. We are the National Party, you know. We do represent the rural sector. That is something to be proud of. A great deal of this social bonus has been brought about by National Party negotiations. We have brought the concerns directly to the attention of the Prime Minister and, to his credit, he has accepted those concerns.The point is that one of the great features we will get from the sale of Telstra is debt reduction. How else can this government tackle the massive debt? I know you will say that we are forgoing a dividend payment of more than $1 billion. That is the greatest red herring. It is somewhere around $1 billion. Correct, Senator Sherry?Senator Sherry interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—No, it varies from year to year.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It depends on how much you sell off.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It does not match the advantage of the debt reduction. If you were to turn that dividend payment directly to the government's debt, which is around $80 billion, it would take you more than 30 years to pay it off. We can virtually pay off the whole government debt—free up over $9 billion of interest payments a year—in one swoop, but you want to leave that debt as a burden for future generations. That is bad business, as Senator Brownhill pointed out. This is good business.You left us that debt. How else are we going to tackle it? This is not just an isolated policy; this is part of a debt-deficit reduction strategy that the government were forced to undertake when we came into government. This is part of smoothing out the boom-bust of the economy. Thank goodness we did start to tackle that debt and that deficit, because it has held us in good stead of late, given the Asian economic crisis.That was the main point I wanted to make. I know that previous speakers—Senators Brownhill, Boswell, Sandy Macdonald and all the other speakers—have made points about the advantages of the social bonus, which we could never finance any other way. Senator Sherry, are you getting up to speak, or do you just have a lot to say?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I am following you.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—What you have to explain when you get up to speak is whether you would implement the social bonus, which we have properly listed out in that legislation. If you would, how are you going to fund it? By debt, as you are so used to and accustomed to? Or are you going to raise taxes? If you do not sell your assets to get in funds, there are only two ways to do it—that is, through debt or raising taxes. That is the challenge that you have to answer, Senator Sherry. And could you do it in the first part of your speech? Usually you are so boring, and I do have another appointment that I have to make. I ask you to answer that question and, if you do not, we can all assume, given the form of the Labor Party, that you are going to raise taxes, push out deficit and raise the debt.20:40:002947Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I was going to keep my remarks fairly brief, but I am pleased to be following Senator McGauran.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Can you hurry up? He's got a date.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Sorry to interrupt your social calendar, Senator McGauran, but it is a pleasure to follow you because, unfortunately, your speech—like those of your fellow National Party senators supporting the full sale of Telstra, not just up to 49 per cent— illustrates the feeble attempt you have made to justify the changed position of the National Party. I will be referring a little later to some of the comments of National Party senators and your colleagues in the lower house who opposed the sell-off of Telstra, but I want to take up the issue that you referred to of how Labor proposes to fund the social bonus.I will be making some comments about the social bonus but, simply put, Senator McGauran, the best way of ensuring forever—or for the foreseeable future, for the next couple of generations—that we have advanced technology in rural and regional areas is to make sure that we continue the cross-subsidy from the urban centres of Australia, Sydney and Melbourne, out into the rural and regional areas, to make sure the community service obligation is kept forever.The only way to do that effectively is with the government running it and giving instructions to Telstra about meeting the justifiable needs of people who live in rural and regional Australia. That is the way to do it, Senator McGauran. You boast that the National Party got tough, walked in to see the Prime Minister and came out with $671 million of social bonus. It sounds like a lot of money, but it is a small fraction of the amount of money that will be required—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—The Prime Minister got the chesterfields.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right, the Prime Minister got the chesterfields. It is a small part of the amount of money that will be required not just to maintain the current level of services to rural and regional Australia but to make sure that rural and regional Australia have the same level of access as everyone else to the modern technologies that are very rapidly emerging.I do not want to keep you from your social appointment, Senator McGauran, but I do want to touch on the record of the National Party, and I hope you will stay while I refer to the record of the National Party.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—There he goes!ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Leaving the chamber, Senator McGauran? We have on record the criticisms of members of the National Party, who claim to represent the interests of rural and regional Australia, about the sale of Telstra. Mr Katter is a fairly well known, prominent member of the National Party.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—An old-style member of the National Party.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I think agrarian socialism would be the general philosophy of Mr Katter.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—An effective member of the National Party.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—A reasonably effective member of the National Party. He said in July-August last year:I must say that I thought it was a fairly arrogant statement, and it most certainly indicated to me that they are determined not to withdraw in any way shape or form. It seems to me that their intention is that there will be some sort of rubber-stamp committee to allow them to sell the second half—that is, of Telstra—but I am not going to go along with that, I can tell you right now.Mr Katter, in a very critical way, was referring to the government's proposal to sell up to 49 per cent of Telstra, and then to sell off the rest—and this is in the legislation we are considering—dependent upon the findings of a so-called independent committee.Senator Calvert interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Like any committee set up by this government, Senator Calvert, I am sure it will be as independent as the next. This is mere subterfuge; this is really a cover to convince the National Party to accept the full privatisation of Telstra.I want to return to this issue of the social bonus. What I find remarkable about the full sale of Telstra is that the likely cost of selling Telstra, including the various legal fees, accountants, the roadshow—as it has become known—the financial advisers, the brokers, the agents and the consultants, will be between $800 million and $1.1 billion. That far exceeds the social bonus. It is a very significant amount of money.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Do you mean the spivs are getting more than the bush?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—They are getting more than the bush—exactly! I will take that interjection. All the middle men—and women, I suppose, not to be sexist about it—are going to get a fair bite of the pie—and the bite they are getting is more than the bush.We did not get comments just from Mr Katter. We had comments from various rural organisations. I notice the New South Wales Farmers Association annual conference was highly critical of the proposal to sell Telstra. The National Farmers Federation have made critical comments. We have had Mrs De-Anne Kelly, a member in the other place, making comments. I can recall some recent criticisms by the Leader of the National Party in Western Australia. More recently we have even had the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson, quite rightly comment about the diverging nature of the economy and social fabric of Australia between urban and rural—we are becoming two nations. He was rebuked by the Prime Minister for being honest.What we are considering here with respect to Telstra is just going to add to the problems of rural and regional Australia. But the National Party, as minor and junior partners in the government, have backed down yet again. Yet again they have failed to defend the interests of rural and regional Australia.My colleague Senator O'Brien referred to the situation in Tasmania at the last federal election. The Labor Party did very well in Tasmania. I do not think it was just because of our position on Telstra; I think it had to do with issues relating to the goods and services tax and the fact that the overall Tasmanian package that the Labor Party presented attracted the electorate down there. One of the impressive things about Tasmania is that the National Party does not exist there. I am very proud that the Labor Party has enjoyed considerable political fortune in Tasmania over the last 60 years.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—What about Senator McGauran?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—You are right: Senator McGauran did come to Tasmania four or five years ago to re-establish the National Party. He met with very limited success, I have to say. I was with him on election night and we were discussing the National Party's chances. We were looking up at the board and the National Party candidates' totals came up—I think they got 300 or 400 votes in a couple of the seats and that was about the limit of their success.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Isn't it sad!ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, it is sad. The point I want to make is this: it is the Labor Party, certainly in Tasmania, that has continued to represent the interests of rural and regional communities in a very strong way.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Is that why it has the highest level of unemployment?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I think we can put some of the blame back on a Liberal Party state government—the Liberal Party was in power for a considerable period. I accept that we can blame the Greens for part of that. But that is a side issue. Nonetheless, the Labor Party has a very proud tradition of defending the interests of rural and regional communities in Tasmania. It is certainly obvious that the Labor Party is recognised, at least in my home state, as an effective representative of those interests—certainly more so than the Liberal Party, given the absolute shocker of a result they had at recent state and federal elections.You only have to look at the work of our federal members such as Dick Adams, the member for Lyons, Harry Quick in Franklin and our new Labor member in Braddon, Mr Sid Sidebottom—and I will be referring to some issues on the north-west coast a little later—who have very substantial rural constituencies, to see they work very effectively on behalf of those interests in Tasmania.Just as another aside to Senator McGauran—he did invite me to comment—the National Party were a total flop in Tasmania. They did even worse than the Liberal Party, which is saying something. Senator McGauran returned to Victoria and I notice that he received some advice from the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, who in no uncertain terms referred to Senator McGauran as one of their poorer performers. It was interesting to note that, following the comments of the Victorian Premier, in the later negotiations for the Senate ticket Senator McGauran actually got promoted for his work in Tasmania. Senator McGauran was promoted over our esteemed Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, but perhaps there were some other reasons for that. But I digress.Tasmania has not done well out of the compensation package that Senator Harradine negotiated with the government as a result of the sale of the first third of Telstra. Commitments were given to Senator Harradine and I understand that he feels very disappointed. He certainly expressed that disappointment publicly. There was a commitment given that there would be an extra 120 jobs in Tasmania. It is interesting to look at that. In Tasmania the number of jobs has declined by 220. What is even more interesting is the shift of a proportion of the technicians out of Tasmania and their relocation to Victoria. It is a very sensitive issue in Tasmania because we have had to suffer the continuing relocation of businesses, administration and people with technical expertise out of the state.I received a complaint some weeks ago from a woman in Bellerive who rang me. She had been waiting two weeks for someone to come and repair her phone. Mind you, a Telstra technician lived across the road. She discussed this with him and he explained that they had to bring someone in from Victoria to repair her phone. It is no wonder that Senator Harradine feels somewhat put out and disillusioned by the outcome of the deal that he negotiated with Senator Alston during the debate on the legislation to sell one-third of Telstra.I think there are six basic reasons why Telstra should not be sold. Firstly, it is a matter of ensuring that service levels in the less profitable areas of Australia, rural and regional Australia—no better exemplified than in my home state of Tasmania—are protected. Secondly, there is the issue relating to remittances or dividends to government. The government speakers in this debate have argued that we need to reduce debt but what they are forgiving are future remittances, future payments to the government. They have got to weigh up the relative advantage to future budgets. It is all very well to spend part of the sale proceeds, and reduce debt, but the ongoing income stream to government is also very important.Thirdly, we are going to have increased ownership associated with the sale of Telstra. Again, the government says that it is at the moment only selling one-third of one-third overseas. But that will become one-third of 100 per cent and there will be associated remittances offshore. If this government continues in power for much longer, I bet that in the next decade we will see that limit of one-third sale to overseas removed. I can envisage the sorts of circumstances and the arguments that this government will put up. Let us assume, and I hope it does not happen, that the Telstra share price declines. We will then have the government coming out and saying, `We need to make sure that we can maximise the competitive sale of the share price and the best way to do that is to allow a greater proportion of it to be sold overseas.' I am confident that that is what this government will do if it gets away with the 100 per cent sale of Telstra.Fourthly, there is the maintenance of Australia's telecommunications infrastructure. That is important as it plays a very important part in the development of Australia. Fifthly, there is the investment by Telstra in research and development and, finally, there is the loss of jobs.This has been a lengthy debate and we are coming to the end of it. We have witnessed yet again the sell-out by the National Party senators in this place. There has been lots of gusto and determination—stand the government up, stand the Prime Minister up—but we know what goes on. Senator Alston, up in his office, works out ways in which he can trick the National Party and bring them onside, give them a little bit of money—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—He doesn't have to get up early in the morning.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—No, he does not. The National Party gets conned once again. I just hope that rural and regional people on mainland Australia wake up to the way in which the National Party has continually failed to represent the interests of people living outside of the major urban centres such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Black Jack would be turning in his grave.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, Black Jack McEwen—the former deputy prime minister—would be turning in his grave at the pitiful performance of the National Party in failing to stand up for rural and regional Australia.Finally, I want to comment on Senator Calvert's interjection about how good the telecommunications services in Tasmania are. What I think we need to be doing in the not too distant future is having a thorough look at the level of telecommunications services in Tasmania, particularly on the north-west coast and King Island. There are many areas in Tasmania where you cannot use mobile phones, and this includes the small township of Forth, where I live. It is only 10 minutes from the major urban centre of Devonport, and only four kilometres inland from the national highway, but no mobile phones operate in that township. I will not pretend—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—You use drums, do you?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We shout down the river valley, Senator! You certainly cannot use mobile phones in Forth, but Forth is not unusual in that there are black spots all around Tasmania. Before any sell-off of Telstra, the interests of the smaller towns and rural and regional centres in Tasmania should be considered. Because they are small in terms of profit centres, they will be the last areas in Australia to receive updated, modern services. It is only natural that a fully privatised Telstra will look at the interests of Sydney and Melbourne before it looks at the interests of Tasmania and some of the smaller townships in Tasmania.As I said, there are cases where the use of mobile phones in Tasmania could have significantly cut down the response time for rescue crews—that is, of course, when the calls are not being re-routed through Melbourne with ambulances and emergency services being sent to centres in Victoria rather than Tasmania. That has been a very controversial issue in Tasmania. Many search and rescue activities, particularly in an area such as King Island, would be greatly assisted if they had adequate mobile phone coverage.Of course, this lack of adequate coverage in Tasmania is a barrier for business. If you travel along the north-west coast of Tasmania between Devonport, Ulverstone, Penguin, Burnie and Smithton, you will have the continuing problem of the mobile phone dropping out. This is along a national highway, of course. This is a serious problem, not just for residents of the north-west coast of Tasmania but also for business people.The improvement in services in my home state of Tasmania and, indeed, in other areas of rural and regional Australia can only be guaranteed by ensuring that Telstra remains in government ownership. The massive costs—the costs that far exceed what is a relatively small amount of money, $671 million, in the context of ensuring modern communications in rural and remote areas—will far exceed the $671 million which the National Party thinks it has got out of the government through its negotiations. The only way to improve services is to ensure that Telstra remains in government hands.I know from his public comments that my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Harradine, with whom I have spent a good deal of time on the GST inquiry, feels considerable concern for the future of rural and regional areas such as our home state of Tasmania. I hope that he does take notice of the failure of this government to deliver on the commitments that were made to him on the last occasion. I hope that he votes with the Labor Party to oppose this legislation. (Time expired)21:00:002951Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise to speak on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and associated legislation. As my colleague Senator Allison has already made clear in her own speech in this second reading debate, the Australian Democrats will not be supporting the sale of the remainder of Telstra. We will not be supporting the sale of any further tranche of Telstra, even if any kind of government inquiry finds Telstra's performance is adequate in relation to its obligations under the universal service obligation.We opposed the sale of the first third of Telstra and we will continue to do so. We opposed the sale for many reasons, not least because the government was selling it far too cheaply. On that score we were certainly proved very right. The sale of Telstra is not in the public interest. The sale of the first third was not and the sale of the next 16 per cent will not be.The Australian population already derives a huge benefit from public ownership of Telstra. That is because we as taxpayers and Australian citizens already own Telstra. The benefit we derive is in the social services directly funded from the dividend returned to government on an annual basis. This benefits the community as a whole, not just those communities that the government is promising funds to through the allocation of the so-called social benefit. We regard this as largely no more than political pork-barrelling, designed to secure support for government policies rather than provide a legitimate link between asset sales and levels of current social expenditure by the government.The sale of a government monopoly also transfers wealth from all of us into the hands of large corporations, stockbrokers and very wealthy individuals. We should be absolutely clear that the sale of a corporation like Telstra does not result in the equal redistribution of resources to Australians. The number of mums and dads benefiting from gaining direct access to the stock market is a small proportion compared to the ordinary Australian mums and dads who lose out from having their asset sold off. Once gone from government ownership, as we know with Labor sales, it is gone forever. Never again will governments or the people at large benefit from the annual dividends such a huge corporation presently delivers.Many speakers have canvassed the service issues, some saying it will improve under full privatisation and some saying that it will deteriorate. I think most of us know which we would put our money on if we were betting on that issue. I would like to get away from those issues, though, because they have been addressed in full by other speakers, and presume that at least part of Telstra will remain a public asset. With that as the starting point, I would like to look at Telstra the company and consider some possible methods by which we can adopt best practice and improve its internal management, and so hopefully improve its value as a public asset and improve the way in which it conducts itself. I believe we have the opportunity to implement cutting edge measures for corporate governance.The Australian Democrats believe that the principles of democracy, openness and accountability are paramount. We believe that the law governing companies in Australia is in need of reform to more strongly promote those principles. In other words, we believe in a democratisation of companies. The fundamental issue is that, while public companies are privately administered, they are publicly owned and should therefore be fully accountable to their shareholders, both ordinary Australians through the majority shareholding of government and the minority of Australians through the minority shareholding that is privately held. Advancing that accountability is the responsibility of every democratic government.If we fail to attend to how these large corporations operate, we will find that they will do us less good than they otherwise might. The Australian Democrats believe that, in the interests of the public as a whole, matters of accountability and honesty in corporate governance need to come before straight commercial self-interest. Economics on its own will damage society unless it is moderated by the principles of justice, democracy and ethics. But it is little understood by the corporately immoral that corporate governance actually produces better economic and commercial performance than where it does not apply. Shareholders, on whose behalf the directors and senior management are acting, must be able to monitor the full extent of the decisions taken by company management and directors, and have the opportunity to ensure they comply with best commercial and ethical practice.The Australian Democrats led the way on corporate law reform in this area of accountability. When Labor and the coalition sought to make no changes to the Company Law Review Bill by signing off a majority report on that basis, we issued a comprehensive minority report calling for numerous improvements. Our report forced changes to be considered and I congratulate the Labor Party on quickly recognising the validity of our corporate law improvements and adding their own while supporting ours.When that bill was passed in June of last year, it included the following Australian Democrat amendments: companies must now disclose the remuneration of directors and top managers; whistleblowing directors can call meetings of members; overseas disclosures must also be made available in Australia; the rights of shareholders to appoint directors are safeguarded; listed companies must give 28 days notice of a meeting of members; performance in relation to significant environmental legislation must be reported; safeguards against fraudulent lodgement of documents must be put with the ASIC; proxies can now be sent by fax, and the chair must declare all proxies; and directors must declare that financial statements accord with the law. We believe that that is an impressive list of changes, and we will be pursuing further reforms when the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill is before this chamber.With us here once again considering the future of Telstra, there is an opportunity to introduce reforms to what is at present our own and a very large Australian company. It is Australia's number one company, and the Senate should ensure that it adopts best practice in its corporate structure and governance. In the committee stage I will be moving an amendment to introduce a corporate governance board into Telstra's corporate structure.Company directors presently have extensive powers in respect of the management of the company's business and internal organisation. Some of these internal management powers, which in my opinion should not be exercised by the main board, may be termed corporate governance powers. They include the power of directors to decide their own remuneration, to appoint and remunerate auditors and other experts, to nominate themselves for re-election, to initiate changes in the corporate constitution and to control the conduct of shareholder meeting and voting procedures. Directors also possess the power to themselves manage conflicts of interest with related parties. That kind of self-regulation has proved very vulnerable to corrupt and improper behaviour.These corporate governance powers are quite different from the duty of directors to manage a company and they should be separated. In listed companies such as Telstra, a separate board should exercise these internal governance powers, leaving the main board of directors to concentrate on the management of the company's business operations, while the second and smaller corporate governance board provides the system of checks and balances into corporate governance procedures. It is a separation of powers, in other words, to protect shareholder interests. This proposal will simplify and reduce the role, responsibilities and workload of Telstra's main board of directors, as well as increasing their credibility by removing the powers which permit the perception or actuality of a conflict of interest. This should improve the accountability of directors.Ultimately this is about re-establishing the balance of company governance in favour of shareholders rather than management. If the Senate allows more of Telstra to be sold, more power will reside with management and the board—the corporate bureaucrats, if you like. These amendments I propose are about making sure that those people are as representative and thoughtful about accountability and community needs as possible. We also believe that these amendments will significantly improve the performance of Telstra at both the ethical and the commercial levels.21:10:002953Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Tonight, along with my colleague Senator Murray, I rise to speak on the Telstra bills, in particular the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . I rise for the second time on such a bill. More than two years ago I began a speech to the Senate on a similar topic with a quote from Bob Walker, Professor of Accounting at the University of New South Wales. That particular quote addressed the serious impact of privatisation on government finances and the need for governments to be more open about privatisation arrangements. This is in the context of belonging to a party, the Australian Democrats, as I do, that has always opposed privatisation of public utilities that is not in the public interest. So we maintain our opposition to privatisation in that circumstance, as indeed we reaffirmed today in relation to the proposed sale by the South Australia government of ETSA, the Electricity Trust of South Australia.One of the complaints that Bob Walker made was that there was a lack of openness and accountability, certainly something to which Senator Murray referred. Leading up to this bill, it may be argued that we have seen a greater degree of discussion or consultation in this process, but it has also been marred on a number of occasions by government attacks on the role of the parliament, in particular the role of the Senate, and the role of the Australian Democrats, particularly my colleague Senator Lyn Allison from Victoria. While this might not be the exact time to talk about the role of the parliament and the Senate in particular, I would certainly like to note the continuing lack of government consultation and cooperation in the process of parliament. I would suggest that Senator Alston, as the responsible minister, should be very careful in his dealings with the likes of Senator Lyn Allison, who I think has been particularly graceful and dignified in dealing with some of the taunts and comments that have come her way from that particular minister. I do think we are in a climate at the moment where the government seeks to portray the Senate as hostile or obstructionist, and in actual fact this is a thinly and badly disguised attempt to run down the powers, the role and the importance of the Senate in providing a check on executive power in a democracy such as ours.In this debate in relation to the privatisation of Telstra, I notice that the government has used the existing private Telstra shareholders as a tool of leverage, if you like, in the discussion. I think it has been quite clear that throughout this process the parliament has had concerns and that those concerns may not lead to the full privatisation of Telstra. But, of course, the government has simply relied on business rhetoric to try and force the Senate to approve the sale.I suggest it has relied on a number of other avenues as well because, coincidental to the debate on this legislation in the Senate, we have also seen increasing activity in related communications areas. I am referring specifically to those recent announcements from Senator Alston regarding Internet censorship and the regulation of 1900 numbers. I do not share the view of some parts of the media that the sale of Telstra can be bought with simplistic promises on censorship. One of the reasons that I do not share this view is that I do not believe that the government is in a position to offer a level of censorship that will be satisfactory to both conservative interests and the Australian community as a whole.I am also aware that the regulation of Internet content is nearly impossible. I think this was something that was almost touched on in question time today when Senator Alston responded to a dorothy dixer on this particular issue. He seems to fail to understand the difficulties in regulating Internet content, and there is a very good report to which I can refer him. It is one by our very own Senate select committee that looked into the issue of Internet content and regulation. He will see not only the Democrat position but some of the arguments that were put forward in relation to what should and should not be regulated, how that should be done and the difficulties in achieving it in some circumstances. In fact, I note that one author has actually referred to the general process of Internet regulation as being somewhat like herding cats. In this context, the current Internet content regulation frenzy does seem a little misplaced. I am happy to save further discussion on that for another time.I have raised a number of concerns in my previous speeches on the transition to private ownership of Telstra that I believe are still relevant and which still, to this day, have not been appropriately addressed by the government, including research and development. When I spoke on the privatisation of Telstra years ago, one of the primary concerns I raised was the role and importance of the Telstra Research Laboratories. When this bill was being discussed recently in the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, my colleague Senator Lyn Allison raised the issue of cuts to research funding and staffing levels within Telstra. The question was taken on notice, but the general response was quite telling. My colleague was informed that the number of jobs lost in the research laboratories `had been relatively few compared to other areas'.At a time when research funding is continually being squeezed by this government's policies, particularly in the portfolio areas of higher education and industry, it is not surprising that there has been so little concern about the reorganisation of Telstra's research program. Evidence suggests that the Telstra research labs have now moved their focus towards adapting overseas developed technology rather than conducting more fundamental research. This is a dangerous and unwelcome shift in an area where Australia is already finding it difficult to compete on research output. I think this is just a general reflection of the government's attitude towards investing in research and development. We have seen cuts to the taxation concession, we have seen massive cuts to research grants and funding, and we have witnessed a radical decline in the funding for operating grants of our universities. Clearly, the government has a very short-sighted approach to research and development. It does not realise that this is an investment and not a cost in our society.It is a similar situation in relation to jobs. As I have outlined, there are significant numbers of jobs being lost not only in the research area but also in a number of other areas within Telstra. I am prepared to acknowledge that the loss of these jobs is the result not simply of privatisation but of the earlier deregulation of the telecommunications market. However, the pressure of privatisation continues to change the form of Telstra, with job losses and damage to service levels in less profitable areas.Telstra also continues to make statements which indicate that further job losses and cuts to regional services will occur—all in the name of competition and productivity and, no doubt, keeping shareholders happy. Only two weeks ago, a call centre was closed in the state of Tasmania—another casualty of privatisation and something that I am sure all Tasmanian senators would be very concerned about.I understand that Telstra has still not reached its previously stated targets for staff reductions. The Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union has identified the continued job shedding as one of the major reasons for the decline in service quality. Of course, that is a fairly logical assessment to make, but I am not sure whether the government has quite worked out that sort of causal connection at this stage.I also note that Telstra is increasingly reliant on indirect forms of employment. This ranges from the outsourcing of functional areas to the growing use of casual labour. It is unfortunate that the government's role in privatising Telstra has led to a further undermining of the employment conditions of those working directly and indirectly for Telstra.As many of my fellow senators will remember, the Democrats have an ongoing concern about the impact of time charged calls on Internet access. This is the problem of B-party charging. It is something we have brought up a number of times. We lodged a private member's bill in this regard. I moved amendments, as I recall, to telecommunications legislation the last time it was before the Senate. During the privatisation processes to date, we have often discussed the possible introduction of time charged voice calls, but the possibility of B-party charging of Internet service providers has been left wide open.Despite the efforts of the Democrats, under the Telecommunications Act 1997 business customers are still not guaranteed ongoing provision of untimed local calls for data. A decision to introduce timed charges, which rests with the carriers, would result in significantly increased costs to business Internet users. Fortunately, residential customers, welfare organisations, charitable bodies, et cetera are now guaranteed ongoing provision of untimed local voice and data calls.Telecommunications carriers are not currently prohibited from charging Internet service providers a separate timed levy for received calls, known as B-party charging. This would result in the indirect charging of all business customers on a timed basis for accessing the Internet. Internet service providers would be forced to pass on these additional costs to their customers. The Democrats have been opposed to this all along: that possibility of spiralling costs and the lack of protection for those business users.The Australian Democrats believe that the Internet should be accessible to and affordable for all. We know from the previous research of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology that the cost of access has a direct impact on the number of users—a fairly logical conclusion to draw. As a hurdle to participation, the cost of access was listed third behind a lack of defined need and availability, but we are certainly concerned that it does not become any more significant. So it is already a perceived potential barrier to access and use. We would hate to see that become even more of a disincentive or barrier to access and use. The Democrats have previously sought amendments to address the issue of B-party charging, and we hope to discuss those amendments again.The question of B-party charging is one part of a more widespread concern about the accessibility and reach of Internet services in this country. The Telstra Big Pond service provides a comprehensive service to Australians living well beyond the geographical reach of other Internet service providers, but at a comparatively high cost. This service has been made possible by Telstra piggybacking these services onto the other existing extensive rural and regional infrastructure. Without the ongoing emphasis on telephone services due to the universal service obligation, it is unlikely that affordable Internet access would be available in those remote regional areas.The future of telecommunications services inverts the Internet access equation. As we move forward, Internet services will become the foundation of most telecommunications services, rather than piggy-backing on the existing services and infrastructure. As this development occurs, it seems likely that we will see a dramatic decrease in the comparative quality and reach of services available in rural and regional Australia.The government's failure to address the long-term question of universal service obligations for data and broadband services means that we will rapidly become unable to provide satisfactory levels of service to rural and regional customers. This must be of great concern to all members in this place. Providing data bandwidth to these customers is generally not profitable and is obviously a low priority, so it would presumably be the first casualty of a process where the emphasis was on competition and the market, as opposed to ensuring that those service obligations are met and that people living in geographically remote areas receive their due services.Aside from the longer term issue of broadband data access for rural and regional customers, the Democrats have concerns about aspects of Telstra's role in the Australian Internet market. One of these concerns is the role of Telstra as a wholesaler, retailer and also regulator of Internet services. This conflict actually occurs in other Telstra service areas, but recent comments from Senator Alston, the minister responsible, would seem to suggest that this is not a problem which needs to be addressed. I would have thought that the problem created by being both a wholesaler and a retailer had been made particularly obvious through the Austel investigations into Telstra's role as the provider of local call infrastructure.I note that on the weekend the minister was asked whether it might not be appropriate to split Telstra into separate network and service provider organisations. The minister suggested both that it was not technically feasible and that it would send `shivers down shareholders' spines'. It certainly is technically feasible, as is obvious from the provision of services by Telstra to other carriers. With regard to sending shivers down shareholders' spines, that is a problem of the government's own making—the government that would suggest that Telstra should be beholden to shareholders and various minor interests—bearing in mind that, when you privatise something that was previously in the hands of all Australians by making it available only to those very few Australians who are able to have shares, of course you are reducing the benefits of that particular service in many senses.Late last week, Telstra announced the addition of another 45 megabit per second bearer to Australia's international Internet bandwidth. Telstra now operates a total of 90 megabits of data bandwidth to the United States from Australia. Telstra remains one of the largest, if not the largest, suppliers of Internet bandwidth in Australia. In addition, Telstra is one of the larger suppliers of retail Internet services. This could be a cause for concern.Before anybody misreads these statements, however, I want to make it clear that I am aware of the cutthroat market for Internet services in this country. I understand that Optus has taken over some of Telstra's biggest customers in the wholesale Internet market. One of the reasons for this movement of customers seems to be concern over Telstra's mixed role, with those numerous responsibilities and a potential, if not evident, conflict of interest. There is a need to clarify the uncertainty in this and other areas before we remove these services from further government influence.Another concern is Telstra's mixed role as the administrator of many of the fundamental components of the Australian Internet backbone. To their credit—and I do acknowledge this very strongly—Telstra have been remarkably fair about this part of their role, ensuring that there is some separation. Telstra provides the main resources for the Australian branch of the Internet Domain Name System, and they administer this with a great deal of integrity.I reiterate my concerns on employment and access to reasonably priced Internet and phone services in this country as a consequence of further privatisation of telecommunications. I do not believe that the sale of a further tranche of Telstra is in the best interests of Australia or Australians. The sale is ideologically driven, and it seems that the greatest benefits will flow to the stockbroking firms underwriting the share transaction, and not to the many millions of Australians who once were able to proudly call Telstra their own.21:27:002957Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I am delighted to speak in the debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and to endeavour to put to rest a few of what I would call the very false and misleading arguments that have been presented consistently both in the Senate and out in the marketplace. People have to realise that it is no use running the arguments which were consistently run during the seventies and eighties about the importance and value of public ownership versus private ownership.It is interesting to note—and I will deal with the Labor Party first—that in the eighties and early nineties they recognised that argument and moved to privatise such things as the Commonwealth Bank, to commercialise it and put it in the marketplace in a fair and equitable position. And they did it in other areas, with regard to the airlines in their general approach. But of course now, through a fear campaign, combined with the Democrats and the Greens they are arguing a course which in fact tries to frighten people off, without any logic behind it.Being one of those people who live in a remoter area that requires a satellite to get television, I have found out very rapidly what has occurred since we have had that facility—particularly since we have moved to digital and there was actually competition in the skies, where the signal comes down from the satellite to you. We found, for example, that Telstra were left behind in terms of that operation because of the restrictions that were placed upon them. I want to expand on that a little, because recently, through the good offices of Senator Alston, it was necessary to negotiate and have put in place cross-broadcasting from the Optus satellite through Telstra down to people who had Telstra dishes so that they could get WIN, which carries Channel 9, and enjoy the cricket or the Today Show and other programs. It was necessary for the private operator up there to provide the service that was supplied through the government operator.This highlights very clearly and succinctly the necessity for Telstra to be allowed to come up to the competition stakes, to the game which is out there now through the providers that exist. One can talk about this for a long time, but I can tell you now, as one of those people affected, that Telstra was very misleading in terms of the data that they put out at that time as to what their little black box and their dish could do and what the information would be. People were left wondering.Those people who chose, because it seemed a good idea at the time, to accept the Telstra transmission were severely disadvantaged. I declare an absolute interest in this, Mr Deputy President, as a user of these services. Those who chose Optus have ended up with the option, over time, of 40 television channels. We have 10 music channels operating right now. We have four radio channels operating, with three or four more to come on board very shortly. We have operating GWN and the ABC, with WIN to come on channel very shortly. We have two education channels operating. Most of these are not supplied under the current arrangements through the alternative. So one has to look very carefully at the motives behind those people who try to knock this legislation, whether it be to go with the 49 per cent sale or the 100 per cent sale.I am personally very much in favour of the 100 per cent sale over the long term. I talk to people and explain the advantages of the capital input that will flow into Telstra because of the sale and keep them in the competition stakes. I am not talking about international services but Australian services to Australian people who live in remote and regional areas of Australia—and in my state in particular. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, Western Australia has the largest area of remote and regional land in this country.Senator Margetts interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You ought to know, Senator Margetts, that the people who live in these areas, who produce so much for this country, are being disadvantaged so much as a result of the resistance to improvements by those who sit on the other side of this place. You only have to look at the difference. Shortly, not so far down the track, from where will those who live out there get their digital services for faxes? They will get them from the private network, not the public network. They will get the advantage of being able to operate a mobile phone through their dish alongside the homestead where they live from the private operation, not the public operation. While we continue, through the rejection of this legislation in the Senate, to restrict the opportunity of an operation such as Telstra to get out there and compete, that will continue to be the case.That means that instead of the people who live in remote and regional areas—and this includes Tasmanians—receiving these advantages, we will continue to restrict them to only one option in terms of their services, instead of having the option of being able to trade off the Optus operation and the Telstra operation. I believe that is going to be very detrimental to the situation of most, if not all, people who live in regional and remote Australia. This scenario is going to make it even more difficult for the people out there living in those areas. They will not be able to get the cost benefits which flow from competition. They will not be able to take advantage of all the services that they are being or will be provided through the various options.This particularly applies to the Internet. If this legislation does not go through we will restrict the ability of people to access a competitive Internet. I am not going to stand up here and say we will not have Internet, but it will be a non-competitive Internet. People have to realise that the game has changed. It is no longer reliant on a wire that runs under the ground or an aerial in somebody's paddock which receives broadcasts. It will come from something up there in the sky called a satellite. We should be creating a mechanism whereby Telstra, a great Australian company and an internationally renowned company, can compete on a fair and equal basis.In addition to that, every Australian should have the opportunity, if they so choose, to share in the wealth that that privatised company could create.Senator Margetts interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Senator Margetts can carry on all she likes about this aspect but, because of her position and other people's position in this place, she is denying a section of the community—albeit a small section of the community in terms of numbers—the opportunity and the options that our city cousins enjoy. I do not believe that is fair, I do not believe it is equitable and I do not think it is something that we in this place should subscribe to or vote for.I acknowledge that I said to the whip that I would restrict myself to seven minutes. However, I make the point that to run these scare campaigns, to not pass this legislation and not go on to the full privatisation, is going to take a lot of money and pleasure from people who live in regional and remote areas in Australia. On top of that, it is going to restrict their opportunities to access the various services that can be provided. We have already seen that. We have the example before us now of what has occurred with Optus and Telstra in Western Australia. I think that is sad. I think it is a shame. I think it is a blight on those opposite that we are not prepared to get on, finish the job, and allow those people to have the same opportunities, the same privileges, the same access, that every other Australian has.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—I move that the debate be now adjourned.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that that motion—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Mr Acting Deputy President, I understand that that is the proposal, but is there any indication of when the debate will be resumed?6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—The debate will resume tomorrow.Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned.Bills2959r6022959Consideration resumed from 18 February.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The committee is considering Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . The question is that schedule 3, item 1, stand as printed.21:37:002959Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am sure honourable senators will remember what I was saying last time I was speaking to this particular group of deletions. I just checked up because it was over a month ago that I last spoke to these amendments, so I will remind you very briefly what I said at the time. I talked about the issue of fringe benefits taxes and went through the various arguments that have been used by governments and other people who have argued for removal of the fringe benefits tax. I talked about the environmental arguments that have been clearly enunciated by a range of people in favour of public transport and against rewarding people for further use of private vehicles. I said that the red tape argument had been overstated.Now I would like to contrast the way the government is dealing with the fringe benefits tax with the way this government is prepared to deal with people with the fewest resources to deal with compliance—that is, those people on social security. The government has made no bones about increasing red tape for potential and current beneficiaries of social security or other benefits. The populist crackdown on so-called welfare cheats has led to draconian guidelines. For instance, we have heard of a two-year migrant waiting period, a questionable tax on civil liberties, private investigation of 15 so-called welfare cheats for a saving of $200,000 and general penny pinching.It takes a long time to fill in the forms that are required for many aspects of social security. That is difficult for many people, especially those who have less education or who need to access information from their parents—especially those filling out Youth Allowance forms. I have spoken to people in recent times and, in answer to my question as to whether things have got easier with the youth allowance, they say, `No, we just fill out the same number of forms but they are longer.' The government has increased the likelihood of problems with reviews. Payments are cut if any mistakes are made—we have seen the list that the minister has at times proudly displayed—even if these are innocent mistakes or for administrative reasons. I will give you some examples in a little while.Trying to resolve issues with Centrelink is difficult because of the lack of resources and staff and the costs. We see government skimping for savings in some social security payments; skimping on those who are less likely to be able to afford it. We have a variety of opinions on what revenue is saved. Why do we have a difference of opinion here? Let us look at some examples of the contrast.On the crackdown on innocent people, Senator Newman noted that a Centrelink memo outlined that 119,700 Youth Allowance forms were due back at Centrelink for end-of-year reviews in 1998, and 33,141 customers—euphemistically—had their payments suspended, often for reasons such as missing information or failing to return the form. So there is an admin problem, and the answer is to cut payments and let people fend for themselves until their case is reviewed. Similarly, on the Centrelink web site beneficiaries are advised that their payments may be cancelled if they do not return their form by the due date—that is, if they can get through on the phone to get the information they need to fill in their forms. Again, for a minor administration slip-up recipients are cut off and may face huge delays and inconvenience in trying to re-establish their payments. We have heard about the huge waits on phones, averaging 40 minutes.Let us look at the strains on staff and the threats of further job losses. The connection here is that for business—and sometimes for relative or dubious savings—the government is prepared to require the parliament to remove a relatively small, if it is anything at all, impost on businesses to cover something which quite clearly has been used by a number of people in tax avoidance. So here we have a situation where, if you are well off, if you are rich, the government is not concerned about your compliance costs. However, if you have no money or if you can prove you have very little money—because that is what you have to do these days to get support from Centrelink—then you will be required to pay enormous compliance costs for your time and your effort. If you do not comply, you will be analysed. The government has said that again and again.Let us look at the GST compliance cost debate. Ray Regan of the National Tax and Accountants Association has warned that businesses face a $15 billion start-up cost to meet the introduction of the GST. In addition, he said University of New South Wales research showed that the continuing annual cost to small businesses would run to thousands of dollars and not the $130 million which the Howard government claimed. We all know that the total compensation package is relatively small compared with figures like that—$500 million over some years for a computer package to cover it. Of course, many of the community organisations would not have the staff to be able to comply or use that kind of compensation.Here we have a situation where it seems that compliance costs are important for some categories of people and in some packages. With the fringe benefits tax it seems that real or mentioned, real or overstated compliance costs, somehow are more important than tax avoidance. Real or overstated compliance costs are more important than anything related to a decent cost signal or price signal or anything related to environment or public health standards—admission levels, for exam ple; those things which commonsense would dictate these days.I am asking the Senate to support Greens (WA) amendments Nos 1 to 6, and to look at rejecting the government's faulty arguments as to why we should pick out fringe benefits tax and say, `Oh, dear. As a community we must remove or reduce the compliance costs associated with fringe benefits tax. And yet as a community, as a parliament, we do not need to look at those issues or adequately deal with them in the government's new tax package under the GST. We do not need to deal with the compliance of the poorest and least resourced people in our society—that is, those people getting social security payments.'The government's approach is totally inconsistent. I believe that the government are simply picking off some of their mates to benefit. I believe that we will be going in the wrong direction. We certainly will not be helping the car problem. We certainly will not be helping the public transport problem. We certainly will not be helping the quality of inner city environment and we certainly will not be going in the direction we should be going in as a society. I urge the support of honourable senators in opposing the unfair and inconsistent elements of this legislation.21:46:002960Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It will not surprise Senator Margetts to hear that we will not be supporting her amendments; nor do we support the arguments which she brought forward. Senator Margetts ranged far and wide and her speech was a continuation of a speech that she made on Thursday, 18 February. I have refreshed my memory of her remarks at that time and have listened to the comments that she has made today.I would point out, Senator Margetts, that the car parking exemption for small business was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his statement More time for business in response to recommendations made by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force in November 1996. A lot of work has gone into this and we are responding to a recommendation from that task force. Generally, the FBT applies only to higher value car parking, which is mainly in the CBD. Some small businesses do not have an FBT liability in respect of car parking but incur compliance costs in establishing that fact. The measure is designed to reduce the compliance costs for small business which they face in respect of car parking. The records associated with car parking generally are not kept for any purpose other than satisfying FBT requirements.Senator Margetts, we do not support your amendments. I think your arguments ranged fairly far and wide regarding what you determined was a `populist crackdown'. You mentioned a number of issues, such as the migrant waiting period. I think most Australians would regard that as good process and governance, making sure that we properly administer these very large social security programs in a responsible fashion. As I said at the start of my speech, we will not be supporting the amendments which have been moved.21:48:002961Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We are sympathetic towards the intent of Senator Margetts's remarks, but we will not be supporting them. We do not believe that the number of employers that will be affected by this measure will be significant. Whilst the measure might only provide relief to a small number of small businesses, the businesses which are relieved from the requirements will generally be very small businesses upon whom the impact of the present FBT reporting and liability provisions are the greatest. Accordingly, we will not support the amendments.21:48:002961O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I think it is fair to say that this matter will not be resolved tonight. That is fairly self-evident, Minister. This legislation has been brought on at a late hour, at the truncation of the Telstra debate. It was surprising when, during the suspension of the sitting for dinner, we were told that the Telstra debate would not continue and there would not be a vote this evening. This matter has been brought on now, obviously without great notice to the advisers, because they have been coming into the chamber as late as two minutes before the time for the moving of the adjournment. It was pretty clear that this matter was unlikely to be resolved this eve ning. Certainly, that was not the view of the minister's advisers.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—But it's on the program.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Often there are a great many things on the program that are never reached. At approximately 9.30 there was a significant amount of discussion left, including the minister's closing comments, in the Telstra debate. Yet the government have chosen to adjourn that debate today so that, apparently, it can come back on tomorrow. If the debate were important, I would have thought—Consideration interrupted; progress reported.Adjournment296110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.296121:50:002961Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The name of Greenwich University, the latest higher education institution to join the respected ranks of the Australian university system, has been raised in the Senate on several occasions. I have raised this matter in the estimates, in questions without notice in this chamber, and on other occasions. I am sure many would ask why this obscure little outfit, established in the small Australian territory of Norfolk Island, has caused such consternation. That fledgling institution, Greenwich University, which has yet to enrol a student in its new incarnation in the Australian higher education system, has implications far beyond Norfolk Island and its 1,500 inhabitants, far beyond the unsuspecting individuals who might apply to study its courses. Yet members of the Australian government persist in passing the buck, denying their responsibilities and pretending that nothing is amiss.Australia's education export industry is worth over $3 billion to this country every year. It is one of our biggest exports. With education services, Australia is showing that we can exploit our greatest natural resource—talent, know-how and knowledge—to our mutual advantage. It is the way of the future.The industry has been built over many years through the resourcefulness and hard work of teachers and administrators in this country's universities, in its training establishment and its colleges. They have succeeded beyond anyone's predictions, despite the huge funding cuts to their institutions and despite the instability and uncertainty which has accompanied major structural change. Yet this government, with its farcical but ultimately tragic stubbornness, is apparently prepared to throw all this work and all this commitment away. All future income for Australian service industry is now at risk. We are entitled to ask: why? It is because Ministers Kemp and Macdonald are not prepared to lose face. They steadfastly refuse to admit that they were caught napping, that they were asleep while this ridiculous, laughable and shonky pack of shysters—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are not going to reflect upon a minister or a member of this place, are you?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Madam Deputy President, I am not reflecting on the ministers. I will repeat what I said. They refuse to admit they were caught napping. They were asleep while a ridiculous, laughable and shonky pack of shysters, posing as a university, somehow sneaked past them and established themselves as what many have called a legitimate Australian higher education institution. With the help of the nine-member legislature of Norfolk Island, an august body with grave responsibilities and obviously considerable expertise in matters academic, Greenwich University is now set up. It is set up under an act of the Norfolk Island Assembly which has placed Greenwich, in terms of legal status, alongside the University of Queensland, the RMIT and the University of New South Wales and on an equal footing.Let us look at this new university. You can start with its courses. Here are some of them. There is consciousness studies, there is depth psychology and new mysticism, there is energy medicine, there is somatic studies. The doctrinal course in depth psychology and new mysticism includes the subjects of advanced alchemy, world fairy tales and a case study of archetypal forces at work. This course is supposedly designed for psychotherapists, ministers, teachers, diplomats, economists, artists and professionals with world charity organisations such as the Red Cross. The students of the course energy medicine have to study two units in vision, creativity and intuition. They must prepare a self-healing workbook.Some of these courses might be very worth while, but you would have to ask yourself whether they belong in a properly established Australian university. You are entitled to also ask: who is supposed to teach these courses? The head of the consciousness studies department at Greenwich is one David Weiss Miller, PhD. His doctoral degree is from—guess where?—Greenwich University, under its former name of the International Institution of Advanced Studies. He is a member of the Association for Past Life Research and Therapy. He is a board member of the International Primal Association. Dr Miller's thesis was entitled, `The Unseen Universe of Mind and Matter'.Another academic—and I use the term loosely—at Greenwich is a certain Francesco Patricolo. He is a certified biofeedback trainer, a colour and light therapist and a theatre games therapist. Greenwich's lead faculty includes the following luminaries. There is a Reverend Carl Lindgren, who has a master's degree and is a member of the International Order of the King's Sons and Daughters, the Sovereign Order of Orthodox Knights, Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem and a couple of other orders. He is an ordained chaplain of the Rose Cloister. The St John Hospitaller Order seems to be a Russian royalist organisation which tried to get recognised by the United Nations but was unsuccessful.There is Dr Rick Walston, whose doctoral degree, I am told, comes from Greenwich itself. On the Greenwich web site he tells us that he was selected as an outstanding young man of America in 1984 and 1987. He is the president of Faraston Theological Seminary, an unaccredited degree mill of the evangelical persuasion which advertises for students in Charisma, Christianity Today and Pulpit Helps. We have the chancellor, a Dr Walsh of Brannagh. Senators may remember that the worthy chancellor, in recent research that came to light, was said to be of the Royal House of Anjou and a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St John of Malta. But there is more. The good Dr Walsh's PhD thesis is from Columbia Pacific University, which, I am told, is an unaccredited American institution. Dr Richard Crews, the former president of that institution, is now president of another closely linked university, the First Millennial Foundation University of the Principality of New Utopia. New Utopia? You might well ask, Senator Reynolds. New Utopia is a principality whose address is an office building in Tulsa, Oklahoma. New Utopia University offers only one degree program—a BA in new age studies. Of course, you can only study this by correspondence.The general aim of the course seems to be to equip graduates to survive nuclear holocaust or similar disasters by colonising space and the oceans. Subjects on offer at New Utopia include the ocean as human environment; mechanics and dynamics of launch, orbital and space travel; and, people in space, the physiology, psychology and sociology of space habitation and travel.All of this might sound a little amusing. I am sure that the nether world of unaccredited mail-order American universities can become a bit of an obsession. But the real issue here is that Greenwich University—that is, the one at Norfolk as opposed to its respectable namesake, the real University of Greenwich in Britain—is a denizen of murky underworld degree mills that cluster on the other side of the Pacific. As amusing as it might seem, it is not the slightest bit funny that they have sneaked up on the unsuspecting people of Norfolk Island and used that island as their beachhead for their stealthy invasion of Australia, having already failed in Victoria.Like so many invaders, they use the darkness as a means of perpetrating their stealth. Australia has been caught napping, thanks to the incompetence of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government and the collusion of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, not to mention the Administrator of Norfolk Island, the Prime Minister's friend.The government must take its head out of the sand. It must act quickly to admit its mistake and to use the reserve powers contained in the Norfolk Island Act to undo the Greenwich legislation. The bogus university cannot be allowed to gain a foothold because the damage it will do can hardly be imagined. Clearly, this is a disaster for the Australian education system.Bandaid measures such as excluding Greenwich from the Australian qualifications framework are simply not enough. It is time for this government to act to ensure that this university—it claims to be a university—is struck out of the Australian university system. The government must have the courage to act. More generally, our international reputation is at stake. The interests of unsuspecting students are at stake. It is up to this government to ensure that there is a robust accreditation system so that this can never happen again. We must ensure that we are not seen to be an opportune site for various persons to plunder our educational institutions and our international reputation. Turning a blind eye to the situation, as Dr Kemp and Minister Macdonald have done, is simply to ignore the fact that years of hard work building our international reputation of excellence can quickly disappear by the actions of a few dodgy providers. (Time expired)296322:00:002963Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—Last Thursday, my colleague the Hon. Bruce Scott took part in ceremonies to open a new commemorative pavilion at Sandakan and to dedicate the Sandakan memorial in Sabah, Malaysia. In 1942, Sabah was the capital of North Borneo. Minister Scott led a veterans' mission group of 24 people to Sandakan to attend the ceremonies and to visit several other significant war sites. He was accompanied by Senator Schacht as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It was a bipartisan trip, for obvious reasons. The group included Sandakan's last surviving prisoner of war, Mr Owen Campbell, who is 83 and lives in Queensland. The widows of four other death march survivors and the daughter of the fifth were also part of the mission.Sandakan, as most in the chamber will be aware, was a prisoner of war camp where Allied troops suffered—as did all prisoners of war—at the hands of the Japanese during the middle and latter parts of World War II. In July 1942, more than 2,700 prisoners of war, known as B Force, were transported from Singapore to Sandakan to build and maintain an airfield for the Japanese. The camp was occupied initially by the B Force, which comprised Australian POWs from Changi. Over time, this number grew as hundreds of British troops joined the Australians. The men worked unceasingly and were fed totally inadequate rations: a little fish and some vegetables. It is no wonder they were sick and weak from malnutrition and dysentery.According to the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, conditions deteriorated in the second half of 1944, with the rice ration being reduced before ceasing altogether. To make matters worse, in March 1945 the Japanese began to withhold medical supplies from the prisoner of war medical staff. The prisoners' health naturally worsened and, not surprisingly, the death rate increased.Christopher Dawson, a leading Sydney freelance journalist with an interest in military history, included in the obituary of one camp survivor, Private Keith Botterill, an extract from an official war history called The Japanese Thrust. In the extract, Mr Botterill described his experience in the camp and his two stints in what was known as `the cage'. The second stint was of 40 days. He shared this tiny space with 17 other POWs, and he described it thus:No water for the first three days. On the third night they'd force you to drink til you were sick. For the first seven days you got no food. On the seventh day they'd start feeding you half camp rations. I . . . never had a wash, and was covered in lice and scabies. We were not allowed to talk, but we used to whisper. We had to kneel down all day.He described having to fight with a starving dog for a bone, and he remembered the treatment meted out by the mainly Korean guards: `Down you'd go—they were cruel—they'd boot you unconscious and just kick and kick—they were fanatical.'Early in 1945, United States troops had arrived in the Philippines and began to bomb the airstrip and the Sandakan camp. Fearing an allied invasion, the Japanese proposed a march to Ranau, 250 kilometres to the west. The prisoners of war were force marched, starving, through the jungle in oppressive heat, crossing rivers and swampland in torrential rain. Large numbers died along the way of exhaustion, disease, ill treatment and malnutrition. Private Keith Botterill was sent on the first of the three death marches, arriving in Ranau in February 1945. Again in The Japanese Thrust, he said of the trek:I said `This is it. I'm going to die.' You could feel yourself dying. You'd sort of give up and then you'd say, `Oh no.' But you couldn't snap out of it. You just automatically got up, and away you'd go.I never had a great will to live. I just put it down to luck. If you were all right in the morning, well that was it. You would take the day as it came.The Sun-Herald reported in 1993:Those who fell by the track were bayoneted or shot. One man cut his own throat to avoid holding up the group. But even those who struggled to Ranau were shot in the end.By September 1945, all but six of the 2,500 Australian and British prisoners who had marched to Ranau were dead. Those who survived were those who were lucky enough and brave enough to escape.Last week, the new memorial was dedicated to those 2,000-plus Australian and British prisoners of war who lost their lives at Sandakan. What those prisoners experienced was so horrific, so cruel and so inhumane that Mr Charles Bean, the Australian war historian and a co-founder of the Australian War Memorial, suggested that details should be kept from the Australian public for some time. The truth, he believed, would cause such great distress and anguish to the families of prisoners of war that he felt the telling of it should be postponed.In recent years, the Australian War Memorial established a small exhibition which gave visitors an overview of the tragedy at Sandakan. From last October, this has been integrated into the memorial's new World War II galleries. We should all know about the experience of the prisoners at Sandakan, however unpalatable it may have been. We should celebrate their tenacity, their courage and the mateship displayed by those men. We should remember it—it should be honoured and it will be honoured. Last week's mission to do this was funded under the coalition's Their Service—Our Heritage program, and it fulfils a coalition election promise to commemorate those who suffered on the Sandakan-Ranau death marches. The minister should be congratulated for the continuing success of the Their Service—Our Heritage program.Since we came to government, the scheme has funded countless memorials, educational projects and other programs designed to assist veterans. I am sure that every senator in the chamber at some stage would have been involved in some of those projects and had the pleasure of presenting cheques to very pleased and loyal Australians who, of all people, appreciate that their service so long ago is still being remembered in an appropriate way.This is a wonderful memorial. It cost a considerable amount of money and it is very much part of the commitment of the government to commemorate and remember those who lost their lives, particularly in this horrific death march. The group's visit to the site was an excellent example of the program in action.296522:08:002965Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I am sure that all honourable senators would endorse Senator Macdonald's words tonight in this place.Tonight I rise to speak on one of my pet topics—the labelling of genetically modified foods, and genetic technology in relation specifically to human cloning. I have said many times before in this place that I fear that we, as legislators, are almost losing this race. Science is advancing at such a rate that our ethics—or, perhaps more specifically, our legislation—is finding it very difficult to keep up. We are very much behind, in fact. The lags between scientific developments and their regulation must be addressed in this place.Two developments in particular that I believe require thorough and timely regulation are genetically modified foods and the issue of human cloning. Both must be adequately addressed and debated in this parliament if we are to seize the dazzling potential of gene technology in the next century. I think that labelling of genetically modified foods is a vital issue. It is an issue that concerns the right of consumers to make informed decisions and their right to health and safety when consuming food products.I am proud to inform the Senate that I was present at the recent Consensus Conference on Gene Technology—Australia's first—which was held a fortnight ago in Old Parliament House from 10 to 12 March. I believe, Madam President, that you were presented with the report, specifically addressing the issue of food labelling, that came out of this conference. The conference explored the ethical, scientific, spiritual and regulatory issues of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, in the food chain and resulted in a final report which called for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods among other—and there was quite a series—of commendable recommendations.The conference's report is one of the most comprehensive and clearest articulations of public opinion on GMOs to date in this country. The success of the conference demonstrates that genetic issues belong in the public arena. Of course, scientists, experts and commentators are all going to have a key role in determining how we approach or regulate or debate these issues, but the public has a right to be informed and to play a part in these discussions as well. After all, it is the public and our environment that will ultimately take the adverse impact, if that is the case, of the effects of GMOs.The Democrats endorse the consensus conference's final report and we challenge the government to introduce those recommendations, including the conference's rejection of the Australian New Zealand Food Authority's `substantial equivalence' criteria for labelling. In recent times, genetic engineering and its products have been assessed by a scientific cost-benefit analysis, where scientific experts dominate the policy process and the values of the wider community have been largely ignored. Once again, it was very invigorating to see the public embracing such an important debate.Human cloning is another big issue which requires parliamentary debate. It is an issue which I and Senator Brian Harradine in particular have tried on at least two occasions to have debated in the Senate and in a committee. On both occasions we have not succeeded, but we will keep trying. The Australian Academy of Science's Position Statement on Human Cloning has received widespread press coverage in the past week. The controversial statement rejected reproductive cloning as morally unacceptable but endorsed therapeutic cloning concurrently. The statement recognised reproductive cloning as the production of an identical human foetus, whereas therapeutic cloning was defined as the production of human stem cells, tissues and organs which may be used as human `spare parts' in future medical procedures.Their statement, apart from generating quite a controversy, has raised many ethical questions which I believe should be discussed more widely in our community and in the parliament. We must ask ourselves: should embryos be created or destroyed for the express purpose of the production of medical therapies? Who holds the rights to the information in human embryonic stem cell lines or the proceeds of any technologies which arise from the line? Should pharmaceutical companies profit from products of human embryos?Although the Commonwealth Constitution does not provide for all-encompassing federal legislation on human cloning, I believe that the federal parliament does have a role in leading this particular debate. I note that the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, announced more than a year ago that the federal government agreed with article 11 of the UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which states that reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity and should be banned. However, we have not heard a lot more from government on this issue since it referred the problem to the Australian Health and Ethics Committee.I support Australian genetic research and believe there is a lot to gain from looking at human bodies at the cellular level. However, human bodies exist in a social, cultural and public context, and it is in these contexts that we must debate the issue of cloning. Specialist scientific and ethical knowledge should be discussed in a wide and diverse public debate, not separately.The potential for genetics to actually treat and ameliorate human suffering is substantial. I believe that very strongly. It has already been shown thus far and is an issue to be addressed by parliaments through health care funding, access to health care services and community awareness about the use of genetic technologies. The existing and the future application of genetics requires a legislated framework that protects people and their rights. Without this certainty, I believe our communities will continue to be reluctant to adopt the great potential that genetic technology offers. The most basic of these is genetic privacy and informed consent. As many senators will be aware, I have set out some of these concerns in my Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Bill 1998 . This bill makes no attempt to provide answers, but it does say that we have some issues here which we need to discuss sooner rather than later.Genetic technology opens up the possibility of new forms of discrimination. I believe genetic discrimination should be unlawful unless the community sanctions particular forms of discrimination which are clearly set out in legislation and which are obviously for beneficial purposes, such as limited employment situations where advances in science can be directly beneficial to the individual. I welcome the ongoing debate about that bill—not just in this parliament; apparently it is being discussed in America and Brazil. Having this kind of legislative framework debated anywhere is a good thing. I acknowledge that many people do not always agree with the views that I have put forward. That is fine, but at least the debate is happening. I urge this parliament to undertake a similar debate. It will be a robust discussion because these are portentous concerns.When it comes to self-regulation, voluntary codes always hide the potential activities of disreputable organisations and disguise the fact that there is no guarantee of protection. That is a very strongly held Democrat line: we must have clearly stated guidelines and legislated rules that the community can abide by. Only that way will the community have knowledge, certainty and confidence about genetic engineering and the claims that it is in their best interests.New technologies bring along dazzling potential benefits and complex issues which need to be resolved. I know that all emerging technology is not always good news, but the drawbacks of technology or genetics must be addressed promptly through a combination of government intervention, legal protection, regulation, scientific imagination and technical invention. If our society is to become more technically and socially complex we must constantly achieve higher levels of education that produce citizens with a well-integrated understanding of these technical and social processes. Science, engineering and technology education must not be restricted to only those areas which serve the technical purpose of society. Society must constantly ask of new technology, `Who should own this technology and for what purpose should it be used?' There is a delicate balance here between developing our bio-industries and protecting basic human rights. Legislation and regulation are needed to ensure consumer rights and safety are maintained and to set out the parameters within which genetic technology and information can be applied. The federal parliament has a role to play in that process in order to ensure that Australians can capitalise on the environmental, health care and other benefits that flow from such technological advances.296722:18:002967Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to a letter which the Illawarra Residents Against Toxic Environments Inc. sent to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, on 18 February. I visited Port Kembla just after this letter was sent and was amazed to see the biggest chimney in that industrial area arising, it almost appeared, out of the backyard of the public school. It is actually in the property next door. That is where a copper processing smelter was closed in 1994 for environmental reasons. That same smelter is now to reopen with some environmental inhibitions but with a prodigious amount of pollution to go back into the local environment.The residents wrote this letter in the wake of a failed court action in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales which only failed because the Carr government brought in legislation which effectively pulled the rug from under the course of legal action they were taking against the authorities of the Carr government. The letter appeals to the United Nations, saying that the residents:. . . rely on The Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 25 for our complaint against the government.Article 25 states:Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family . . .The residents state that they believe that would mean:. . . the right to breathe clean air, and the right to have our homes and land free from the toxic contaminants emitted by the ever-expanding heavy industries.They go on to outline the denial of democratic rights involved in this affair and the overriding of the interests of the local community. The letter is an appeal from the heart by people who are frustrated and fearful, not just for themselves but for their children and their neighbourhood. I seek leave to table this document. Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the Senate. The second matter I refer to tonight deals with political donations by woodchippers to the coalition and to the ALP. A review made by a researcher of the donations made to the older parties has found that, in the 1994-95 financial year, two of Australia's largest woodchipping companies, Amcor and Boral, gave money to the ALP and the coalition on the very same day that the then federal resources minister, David Beddall, renewed and extended the export woodchip licences for the same companies. It was also the same day that another giant woodchipper, Wesfarmers Bunnings, gave their largest political donation of that financial year.People who were here then, or indeed anybody watching from outside, will remember that 21 December 1994 was a dark day for those people concerned about Australia's forest environment. It became known as `Beddall's blunder', and I will explain that in a moment. The expectation around the country was that the federal government—the Keating government—would save some of our precious wild forest. Despite this overwhelming expectation, the minister—Beddall—handling this matter gave vast new tracts of publicly owned old-growth native forest to Amcor, Boral and Wesfarmers Bunnings to be woodchipped and end up ultimately as paper bags and other paper produce on the scrap heaps of the Northern Hemisphere.Mr Beddall's largesse was so breathtaking, and the backlash against the government from the populous at large so destabilising, that three weeks later, on 13 January 1995, the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial reported it as `Beddall's blunder' and noted that Prime Minister Keating had promised to phase out all export woodchipping by the year 2000. That is only nine months away but we are not getting that phase-out. We are in fact facing a total removal of all export woodchip ceilings under the Regional Forest Agreement legislation about to be voted on in this chamber. I seek leave to table a graph which clearly demonstrates this extraordinary coincidence of the dates of donations in relation to woodchip licence renewals. It is a four-page document.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the Senate. I ask, for those who will read this graph, what fair-minded person in the wider populous could be expected to believe that those mas sive donations by Boral, Amcor and Wesfarmers Bunnings—Australia's rich and destructive woodchip companies—happened purely coincidentally on the same day that their woodchip licences were renewed? Do the big parties—the ALP and the coalition—really expect the average voter to believe that this is pure coincidence? If so, please give an explanation.The point of this is to seek some explanation, in the absence of which the circumstances really reek of corruption. This really has the stench of the sort of shoddy deal that says, `You donate some money to our party coffers, and we will extend and defend your licences to export the wild forests as woodchips.' These companies got what they wanted on the very day—21 December 1994—that they donated $242,500 to the ALP and the coalition. The ALP and the coalition should make amends to the people of Australia by now voting down the Regional Forest Agreement legislation and protecting what remains of the nation's heritage.I sum up there: on the very day—in a sea of public controversy, with the nation watching—on which the export woodchip licences were renewed for these three giant corporations in Australia, massive donations went to the two principal political parties, and not least the government which was making that decision. Remember, it was supported by the opposition. While this is some five years back, an explanation is owed here.I have used very strong words tonight about this matter but, as you know, Madam President, I feel very strongly about it. An explanation is warranted to the people who feel they have lost so much by that decision and to a country in which now more than 70 per cent of people oppose what is happening to the forests. The very companies who donate to the big political parties have had a way.296822:26:002968Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—This evening, I want to continue my comments that I started a couple of weeks ago in relation to a matter that was brought to the committee responsible for monitoring the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As many honourable senators will know—not that there are many of them here to listen—the committee brought down its report on Friday. I would like to make some comment on the key issues that it has raised.There has been criticism in the media to the effect, `What would this committee know? This committee is not familiar with the Australian situation.' Firstly, I point out that this committee is made up of experts in the field and they do have an understanding of the UN convention. Secondly, I point out that Australia is the one that signed the convention. Australia agreed with the convention as long ago as 1966. If we no longer agree with it, perhaps we had better say so. We cannot have it both ways. Either we agree with it and we uphold it, or we are going to have to accept that we will be criticised for breaching it. Point 6 of the committee's decision states:The Committee, having considered a series of new amendments to the Native Title Act, as adopted in 1998, expresses concern over the compatibility of the Native Title Act, as currently amended, with the State Party's international obligations underneath the Convention. While the original Native Title Act recognizes and seeks to protect indigenous title, provisions that extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests pervade the amended Act. While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced between the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended Act appears to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title.This is in direct contravention of the intentions of the convention. The committee notes, in particular, four specific provisions that discriminate against indigenous title holders. These include: validation provisions; confirmation of extinguishment provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of indigenous title holders to negotiate non-indigenous land uses.These provisions raise concerns that the amended act appears to wind back the protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision in the High Court of Australia and the original 1993 Native Title Act. Point 9 states:The lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments also raises concerns with respect to the State Party's compliance with its obligations under Article 5(c) of the Convention. Calling upon States Parties to `recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their common lands, territories and resources,' the Committee, in its General Recommendation XXIII, stressed the importance of ensuring `that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent.'Point 10 states:While welcoming the State Party's recognition of the important role that has been played by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Committee also notes with concern the State Party's proposed changes to the overall structure of the Commission; abolishing the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and assigning those functions to a generalist Deputy President.There seems to be great confusion about this issue. In this place only two weeks ago I congratulated the Attorney-General on reinstating this position, notwithstanding the fact that legislation abolishing the position has already passed the House of Representatives and is in this place to be debated. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General put out a press release naming Dr Bill Jonas as the new Social Justice Commissioner—or so I thought. Apparently that is not the intention. I really would like that to be cleared up because I am certainly confused. I would not have dreamt of congratulating the Attorney-General if that was not his intent. It certainly was the impression he gave but apparently that is not to be. No doubt we will have a full debate about those matters when that amended bill comes before us in this chamber.The committee has called on Australia to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency. Most importantly, in conformity with the committee's general recommendation No. XXIII concerning indigenous peoples, the committee urges the State Party to suspend implementation of the 1998 amendments and to reopen discussions with representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligations under the convention. Finally, point 12 states:In light of the urgency and fundamental importance of these matters, and taking into account the willingness expressed by the State Party to continue dialogue with the Committee over these provisions, the Committee decides to keep this matter on its agenda under its early warning and urgent action procedures to be reviewed again at its fifty-fifth session.I understand that is in August.This is a matter of grave concern for all Australians. It is our international reputation that is at stake here. I understand what it is like whenever we are criticised. When I am criticised I like to try to make the best of a bad situation and make excuses. That is only natural. We have had the Attorney-General making excuses and saying that the report is ill informed and insulting, and he has dismissed it. I understand that reaction; we do not like being told that we are wrong. But he is going to have to reconsider it.Also, I heard that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, made a similar statement. He was quite dismissive, saying that this report means absolutely nothing. It will mean something when it is in the General Assembly in October or November. How will Australia feel when this report is given to all nations in the General Assembly in New York? It is all very well to bluff through and say that Australia does not care and that it really does not matter. Of course Australia cares. Of course we are going to have to find some mechanism to address these concerns and do it in a way that is acceptable to the government. I accept that the government is extremely sensitive about it.The obvious way to deal with this criticism is for the amended legislation to be immediately referred to the joint parliamentary committee monitoring native title. Having served on that committee for nearly six years, I believe that is our role. At the very least the government should refer the bill immediately for a report and it should immediately set up direct consultations with the National Indigenous Working Group and with other concerned indigenous leaders. Obviously ATSIC would be one of them.This is, as reported in Unity News, which publishes the diary dates for United Nations observances, the week of solidarity for peoples struggling against racism and racial discrimination. Already there is an occasion at Westminster in London tonight Australian time when, at the House of Commons at 4 o'clock, there will be a meeting of members of parliament, trade unions, non-government organisation representatives and other influential speakers who will stand in solidarity with Aboriginal people as they call on the British government to show concern about this matter. There will also be a candlelight vigil outside Australia House. Is this the kind of action that we want to see? First the United Nations and now London. (Time expired)22:37:002970Senate adjourned at 10.37 p.m.Documents29702970The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Communication Authority Act— Telecommunications (Facility Installation Permit—Application Charge) Determination 1999. Telecommunications (Facility Installation Permit—Public Inquiry Charges) Determination 1999.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 37.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendment of section 82, dated 8 March 1999. Exemption No. CASA 05/1999-08/1999. Instrument No. CASA 69/99.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 38.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declaration under section 18 amending Schedule 1, dated 19 January 1999.Export Control Act—Export Control (Grain, Plants and Plant Products) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 20. International Air Services Commission Act— Declaration under section 54B—Declaration of Pre-existing Capacity—Instrument No. M/JA2/99. International Air Services Policy Statement No. 3 (Amendment)—Instrument No. JA/M22/99.Migration Act—General direction under section 499—General Direction—Criminal Deportation—No. 9.Navigation Act—Marine Orders—Order Nos 7 and 8 of 1999.Product Ruling PR 1999/9.Public Service Act— Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/6 and 1999/7. Public Service Determination 1999/1.Radiocommunications Act—Declaration under section 190, dated 4 March 1999 [Prohibited Device Declaration—Mobile Telephone Hammer].Superannuation Act 1990 —Declaration—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 36.2971The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 30 December 1998—Statements of compliance— Comcare. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Department of Transport and Regional Services—Central Office. Environment and Heritage portfolio, incorporating Australian Antarctic Division, Australian Greenhouse Office, Bureau of Meteorology, Department of the Environment and Heritage and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. International Air Services Commission. Public Service and Merit Protection Commission.Answers to Questions on Notice2972The following answers to questions were circulated:2972(Question No. 200)2002972Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:Will the Government release, in full, Captain Wheadon's report, referred to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio's PM program on 23 November 1998, regarding serious human rights violations at Biak in West Papua since 1 November 1998; if so, when; if not, what is the nature of the material in the report, the release of which would be against the public interest.2972Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. The report of the visit to Biak over the period 11-14 July 1998 by Captain Wheadon, then Defence staff Jakarta, is a highly classified document. Although some of the information given in the report is already in the public domain, the report provides far greater detail and amalgamates a number of sources of information. I believe, therefore, it provides a mass of information that in its totality would be very damaging to our international relations. In addition, if the report were to be released it would divulge information communicated in confidence by Indonesian officials. Consideration has been given to the possibility of releasing the document with some of the more sensitive information deleted. However, this is impossible as the exempt portions cover the majority of the document and are inextricably entwined with the rest of the document.2972(Question No. 205)2052972Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked ask the Minister representing the Minister for Finance andAdministration, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.2972Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Department is unable to readily determine the extent of any advertising by the eight former DAS businesses, ie Asset Services, AOSS, APG, DASCEM, Works Australia, DAS Distribution, Interiors Australia and DASFleet. With the sale of these businesses to the private sector and the consequent storage of records, dispersal of staff and loss of corporate knowledge, it would be extremely labour intensive and costly for DOFA to provide the detail required.For the remainder of the Department and portfolio agencies the following information is provided:(1) (a) Department of Finance and AdministrationYear/ MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996---4,77615,47322,14320,6094,35314,95716,3924,3012,48319978,4836,3766,42528,62535,96165,55616,10468,56534,66419,67514,8548,812199829,845438,40941,8034,897--------(b) Portfolio Agencies Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)Year/ MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDecc1996---83,56756,42063,34033,95815,28062,011103,73669,354107,462199753,10413,32045,74140,542165,829807,9946,4599,234386,294272,5332,298,848440,717199832,61840,866129,26916,11522,017-6,05037,48943,652181,6885,906,0512,141,112Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO)Year/ MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996----1,400,0985,945,05282,024-----1997-------4,275,2942,580,5443,185,548559,093-1998------------Office of Government Information Technology (OGIT)Year/MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996------------1997-----------1,1231998---8,157--------(2)(a) Print Media(b) Radio(c) Television(d) OtherDepartment95.4%0.8%-3.8%—Bill Board advertisingAgencies:AEC 80%3%17%-OASITO44%5%51%0.1%—Outdoor AdvertisingOGIT100%---(3) (a) 97%(b) Advertising not placed through OGIA comprises advertising in the Yellow and White Pages and advertising for the sale of Commonwealth property by the appointed agents for the Commonwealth.2973(Question No. 229)2292973Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 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.2973Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:To provide a complete answer to this question would require considerable time and resources and I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert them from health priorities at this time.However, each year the Department reports on consultancies in its Annual Report. The Department's 1997-98 Annual Report (tabled 20 October 1998) provides information on advertising, public relations, market research and media consul tancies undertaken by the department in Appendices 7 and 8. (Pp 270-282).Appendix 8 provides a description of each consultancy, including market research, together with the dollar value, the selection process adopted and justification for selection.In undertaking communication activities, the Department maintains a close working relationship with the Government Communications Unit (GCU), formerly the Office of Government Information and Advertising. The Department participates fully in the Ministerial Committee for Government Communications process for which GCU provides administrative support. The Department also seeks relevant guidance from GCU in making its contractual arrangements with suppliers and consultants that fall under GCU's purview, including market research related to communications activities.2974(Question No. 235)2352974Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.2974Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following amended answer to the honourable senator's question. The answer is an amendment to the answer (Hansard , 17 February 1999, page 2054) previously supplied to the honourable senator:(1) The total value of market research on a month-by-month basis was as follows:March 1997: $3,680November 1997: $37,490 December 1997: $45,090February 1998: $21,997April 1998: $45,900May 1998: $40,364August 1998: $26,293September 1998: $40,890October 1998: $10,000November 1998: $nilTOTAL $271,704(2) The contracts were for:(a) research into attitudes on racism,(b) evaluation of public response to an Australian citizenship booklet, and(c) the selection of a number of logo and designs to be used during the 50th Anniversary of Australian Citizenship.(3) For (a), the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) was consulted on the research brief and contributed to the list of consultants. Two OGIA officers sat on the assessment panel, together with two departmental officers. OGIA advised the Department on research methodologies and on the main techniques of qualitative research, in particular, the appropriateness of novel methodologies proposed by some tenderers. OGIA was not involved in the other two contracts.(4) For (a), thirteen firms were invited to submit tender proposals for research into attitudes on racism. In response, eight firms submitted proposals. For (b), a firm was engaged under an existing contract. For (c), three companies were invited to, and submitted, proposals for the research on logo and designs to be used for the 50th Anniversary of Australian Citizenship.(5) The following firms were selected. For (a), Eureka Strategic Research was selected. For (b), Media Marketing Group sub-contracted Market Attitude Research Services Pty Ltd under the terms of an existing contract. For (c), Market Attitude Research Services Pty Ltd was selected.(6) The estimated or contract price of the research, and actual expenditure is as follows. For (a), the estimated price was $241,300. This comprised $105,000 for qualitative research, $100,500 for quantitative research, and $35,800 for pre-testing. The actual amount expended was $252,034. The contract was amended on 28 July 1998 by mutual agreement to include reimbursement of travel and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the contractor. The estimated price for (b) was $9,200. The actual expenditure was $9,670 ($3,680 paid in March 1997 and $5,990 paid in November 1997). For (c), the estimated price was $10,000 and the amount expended was $10,000 in October 1998.2975(Question No. 297)2972975Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) How many staff were employed by the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) as at 20 November 1998.(2) What are the names, current positions and Australian Public Service levels of each OGIA employee.2975Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government Communications Division, which employed all the continuing OGIA staff, had 8 staff at 20 November 1998.(2) G Williams, First Assistant Secretary, Government Communications, SES Band 2; L Courtney, Director Government Advertising, Executive 2; M Fairweather, Senior Communications Adviser, Executive 1 R Davies, Senior Communications Adviser Executive 1 S Tredinnick, Executive Officer, Executive 1 A Walters, Communications Adviser, APS Level 5 D Cavenagh, Communications Adviser, APS Level 5 M Paten, Executive Assistant, Administrative APS Level 32975(Question No. 378)3782975Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 December 1998:With reference to the recent visit East Timor by Defence Attache Colonel Brian Millen.(1) Was the focus of the Defence Attache's visit to East Timor to investigate claims of a further massacre of up to 100 East Timorese by Indonesian troops following the massacre at Santa Cruz cemetery.(2) Was the focus of the Defence Attache's visit to monitor Indonesian troop movements and numbers. (3) What were the findings of the Defence Attache in respect of paragraphs (1) and (2).(4) Did the Defence Attache meet with Indonesian military officers and members of the local East Timorese population during the visit.(5) What were Colonel Millen's findings and recommendation to the Government.(6) Will the report be made public.(7) In the interest of transparency, and to enable independent observers such as the International Red Cross and Amnesty International to monitor the situation in East Timor, does the Minister not agree that this can only be achieved by publicly releasing the Defence Attache's report.(8) Does the Minister not agree that the only way to effectively stop human rights violations is to publicly expose those abuses, and those who perpetrate them.2975Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) Colonel Millen, then Australia's Army Attache to Indonesia, visited East Timor over the period 2 to 6 December 1998. The purpose and nature of the visit changed between the time it had been planned and the time it took place, as a result of the allegations of a massacre at Alas and concerns expressed by the Government about those allegations. As a consequence, Alas was added to the itinerary of the visit, both to enable a better assessment of claims regarding what had happened and also to demonstrate to the Indonesian authorities that we were deeply concerned about the reports of a massacre. Colonel Millen was also tasked to inquire about troop numbers in East Timor. As with most regional visits undertaken by Australian Embassy staff, including Defence staff, the Army Attache's visit involved a number of other objectives. In this case, among other things, it included introducing the in-coming Army Attache to relevant interlocutors in East Timor.(3) and (5) In accordance with normal procedure Colonel Millen completed a report of his visit. I do not intend to discuss all the details of that report, however Colonel Millen did comment on the alleged massacre in Alas and the question of troop numbers. Colonel Millen reported that the incident in Alas appeared to be more of a civil disturbance involving a number of parties rather than a military attack. His observations did not substantiate claims that a massacre had occurred although he could confirm that houses had been burned and between 1 and 9 people had been killed in fighting. The military commander in East Timor informed Colonel Millen that there were 12,000 troops in East Timor at that time, although the visit did not provide Colonel Millen the opportunity to substantiate that number.(4) The visit was carried out in full consultation with the Indonesian authorities. Colonel Millen met with the military commander of East Timor, a number of other military officers, and members of the East Timorese community, including the Governor and Deputy Governor of the province, during the course of his visit.(6) and (7) The report is a highly classified document that contains information provided to Colonel Millen in confidence by Indonesian officials. As such it will not be released to the public. It would not have any particular value for independent observers such as the Red Cross or Amnesty International. Furthermore, the public release of this report would undermine the strong relationship we have with Indonesia.(8) The most effective way to curb human rights violations in Indonesia is for the Indonesian Government to improve professional military standards and accountability throughout the armed forces. The Indonesian Government is taking steps to improve human rights in their country. The Australian Government has encouraged the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) to use restraint when dealing with civil unrest, and has expressed its concerns regarding human rights abuses to the Indonesian Government and ABRI on many occasions. We continue to encourage the Indonesian Government to take action against those found responsible for human rights abuses.2976(Question No. 397)3972976Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BoswellYE4QLDNP10 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 27 January 1999:With reference to Senator Boswell's question without notice (Senate Hansard 1 December 1998, p 958) relating to the arbitration proceedings and Supreme Court actions between Telstra and Casualties of Telecom (CoT) members and the reply that a definitive answer on the most up-to-date costs incurred by Telstra would be provided:(1) (a) What are the most recent costs and up-to-date total costs incurred by Telstra in relation to the COT arbitration proceedings and subsequent court proceedings; and (b) what period of time does this figure cover.(2) What costs were incurred internally and what costs were incurred externally.(3) How many Telstra officers and external consultants have worked and are currently working on CoT cases.(4) (a) How many firms of solicitors, accountants and other outside consultants are currently working on CoT cases; and (b) how many have worked on the arbitration process and court actions in the past.(5) (a) What are the current arrangements for the employment of outside consultants for the present existing CoT cases; and (b) what is the cost of these ongoing contracts or arrangements.2976Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Telstra has provided the following details:(1) (a) The most recent costs incurred by Telstra for the 1997/98 financial year and 1998/99 YTD amount to $4,624,635. This figure includes $2,320,921 incurred by Telstra through its participation in the Senate Working Party process.The up to date total costs incurred by Telstra over the period 1993/94 through to1998/99 YTD are $23,356 927.(b) See response to (a).(2) Of the total costs, $5,449,652 was incurred internally by Telstra and $17,907,275 was incurred externally.(3) The Difficult Networks Fault Analysis Group (DNFAG) currently has 21 staff working on the Senate Committee Working Party process and COT arbitrations. In addition, two members of Telstra's legal staff and a senior manager are engaged partly on COT cases. The number of staff working on COT cases since 1993/1994 has varied significantly with workload.(4) Two firms of solicitors are currently working on COT cases. One other firm of solicitors has in the past worked on COT cases, as has one firm of accountants.(5) External firms of solicitors and accountants are engaged to provided legal and accounting advice and support. The costs of this support in the year to date 1998/1999 is $333,913.2976(Question No. 398)3982976Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 9 February 1999:(1) What is the Government's official position on self-determination both in domestic and international policy.(2) (a) What was the rationale for moving to `self-management' and `self-empowerment'; (b) on what basis was this change made; (c) where did the impetus come from; (d) which agency was responsible for the preparation of the Cabinet submissions; and (e) which other government departments provided advice on the matter.(3) What consultation processes were undertaken with indigenous peoples, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and other relevant groups in relation to this change.(4) Given that ATSIC has been described by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs as the leading national advisory body on indigenous affairs, why was ATSIC not included in the processes leading up to the Cabinet decision.(5) Has the Government and/or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought to influence other governments to downgrade the language of self-determination in the draft declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; if not, will they try to do so.2977Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Government's position on self-determination in the context of the UN negotiations on a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that it is unable to accept the term "self-determination" as it is used in the Draft Declaration because "self-determination" has no settled meaning and for many it implies establishment of separate nations or separate laws. The Government does not question the legitimate aspirations of indigenous peoples to enjoy meaningful participation in decision-making and political processes and greater autonomy over their affairs, but there is a difference between this and the way "self-determination" could be interpreted in the Draft Declaration. Australia is seeking more appropriate and alternative language to "self-determination" in the referring articles. This position was conveyed by the Australian delegation to the meeting of the UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Geneva on 7 December 1998.(2) At the 7 December 1998 meeting of the UN Working Group, the Australian delegation conveyed the Government's view that it would be more productive for the Working Group to look at alternative language to "self-determination" in the Draft Declaration which would more accurately express the principle of indigenous peoples having greater opportunities to exercise meaningful control over their affairs. The Government believes this to be a more positive approach than the alternative proposal of introducing clarifications or qualifications to references to "self-determination" in the text of the document. The remaining aspects of this question relate to Ministerial and Cabinet advice.(3) The Government regularly consults States and Territories and interest groups, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, on issues relating to the Draft Declaration.(4) Because ATSIC has chosen to participate in United Nations forums as a `non-government organisation', it is precluded from internal Govern ment policy deliberations concerning issues to be discussed at those forums.(5) Over the years many countries in the Working Group have expressed their concerns about the ambiguity of the term "self-determination" in the Draft Declaration. At the December 1998 Geneva meeting, most delegations which spoke on this issue expressed concern that the term "self-determination" was ambiguous and ill-defined and required further discussion. The Australian delegation discussed its approach to the Draft Declaration, including the use of the term "self-determination", with other delegations involved in the Working Group, including the delegations of Canada, New Zealand and the USA.2977(Question No. 402)4022977O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:(1) Did a company, Sinclair Knight, undertake a scoping study of the Western Tasmania region; if so, what was the cost of the work.(2) (a) What was the outcome of that work: and (b) can a copy be provided of the resulting report.(3) Has any further work been undertaken since that work was completed.(4) Given that, at an estimates hearing in 1998, the department advised that a full study of the region would cost in the order of $180,000: (a) is that still the department's estimate for the work: (b) is that full study to proceed: and (c) who will meet the cost of the study.2977Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The cost, which is "commercial in confidence", was met by the Tasmanian Department of Mineral Resources (TDMR).(2) (a) The outcome was a report by Sinclair Knight Merz Pty. Ltd. which formed the basis for the Terms of Reference used in the Request for Proposal, issued by TDMR on 27 August 1998, for consultants to undertake the Western Tasmanian Regional Minerals Study. (b) a copy of the Terms of Reference will be forwarded to Senator O'Brien.(3) Yes, see below.(4) (a) The final bid accepted for the study was within the estimate of $180,000 provided in 1998. (b) Yes, two finalists were interviewed by the Management Committee (which comprises industry, the Commonwealth and State Government) in Burnie on 20 November 1998. AGC Woodward Clyde Pty Limited was selected as the preferred tenderer and work commenced in January 1999. The study will produce a Developers Guide to Western Tasmania and determine priorities for infrastructure development. It is due for completion in September 1999. (c) The cost of the study is to be met jointly by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources through the Regional Minerals Program, TDMR and the industry through the Tasmanian Minerals Council.2978(Question No. 408)4082978Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 February 1999:What is Centrelink's practice in relation to the retention of individual client records, in particular (a) what records of individuals are kept; (b) in what form are such records kept; (c) what are the conditions, if any, applying to recalling those retained records; and (d) is there a time limit on the retention and use of these records.2978Newman, 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 retention of individual client records by Centrelink is subject to Record Disposal Authorities (RDAs) issued by the National Archives of Australia under the Archives Act 1983 and the agreements between Centrelink and the various client departments on behalf of which Centrelink provides services.Without the details of the individual client circumstances only general answers can be provided to the remaining questions with the exception of part (b):(a) only sufficient information is requested and retained to access and record an entitlement under the appropriate benefit legislation for a payment and details to enable payment to be made;(b) records have to be retained in paper and electronic form. Paper records are retained for evidential reasons because in some States and the Northern Territory electronic evidence is not yet admissible in Court. Electronic records are retained for operational and statistical purposes;(c) only Centrelink officers in the course of their duties are allowed to recall retained records;(d) under the authority of the Archives Act, retention periods range from permanently (forever) to destruction after one year of inactivity. If an individual client record exists a customer service officer will use this information to assist in delivering a high level of service and to ensure the best possible outcome for the client. 2978(Question No. 420)4202978O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 February 1999:(1) What variations exist between Australian maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides in Australian primary industry commodities and MRLs for those commodities set in: (a) Japan; (b) the United States of America; (c) New Zealand; (d) Korea; (e) the United Kingdom; (f) Hong Kong; (g) Singapore; (h) Taiwan; (i) China; (j) Indonesia; and (k) the European Union.(2) Are all countries in (1) obliged to comply with: (a) the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS); and (b) the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), in the setting of MRLs for pesticides for primary industry commodities.(3) Are any of the countries in (1) in breach of their obligations under both the SPS and the TBT agreements in relation to the MRLs they apply to imported primary industry commodities from Australia.2978Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Maximum residue limits of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are based on their safe use under conditions necessary for effective and reliable control of pests and diseases. The conditions that determine this safe use include pest pressure, climate, soil types, agricultural practices, crop types and other factors. These vary from country to country, and as a consequence, so can individual MRLs.All countries regularly make additions to, and deletions from, their lists of MRLs. Likewise, countries alter individual MRLs from time to time as conditions of use change.Australia has about 4,000 maximum residue limits established for residues of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in food commodities. The number of MRLs established by each of the countries listed are of the same magnitude. It is therefore not possible, in a practical sense, to state what variations exist between MRLs in the countries named above.To the extent possible, national bodies responsible for the establishment of MRLs in their countries try to harmonise the limits internationally, but this is only possible in a limited number of cases.(2) All countries which have acceded to the WTO must comply with all WTO agreements in Annex 1A, which includes the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.Regulations which set allowable levels of pesticide or veterinary drug residues fall under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. In this instance, therefore, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade is not relevant.All the customs territories listed above, except China and Taiwan, are members of the WTO. Both of these are negotiating accession to the WTO, and are currently observers.(3) I am not aware of any WTO cases which have demonstrated a breach of obligations concerning MRLs, or of any current concerns under the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.2979(Question No. 436)4362979O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Has the department, its predecessor, or any of its agencies, undertaken an economic assessment of the Australian horse racing industry; if so: (a) when was that research undertaken; and (b) who undertook the work.(2) What is the value of the contribution the horse racing industry makes to the Australian economy.(3) How many people are employed directly and indirectly by the horse racing industry.2980Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Australian Bureau of Agriculture & Resource Economics (ABARE), the economic research section of the department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry has done no research on this issue.(2) ABARE does not collect data on the horse racing industry.(3) See answer to question 2.