1999-03-243912SENATE306901999-03-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous306909:31:003069Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—by leave—On 1 December last year Senator Lees asked me a question without notice regarding a proposal by Pangea Resources to store high level nuclear waste in Australia. In answering that question I stated that there had been `no ministerial level discussions with that company'. At that time I was acting on the advice of my office. My office had consulted all senior ministers who they assessed could potentially have had some involvement in this issue. They confirmed that none of those ministers had had any meeting with Pangea.However, my answer, as it transpires, was incorrect as I have since ascertained that Mr Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, met with Pangea late last year. My office was advised yesterday by the office of Mr Tuckey that he met with Mr James Voss of Pangea Resources on 5 November 1998. That meeting was at the instigation of Pangea and occurred in Mr Tuckey's electoral office in Perth.Mr Tuckey of course has no role at all in the process of approving the importation of nuclear material into Australia. Mr Tuckey has confirmed that he made no representations to any other minister or any department on this issue. Mr Tuckey is the only minister to have met with Pangea and no minister has met with Pangea since my answer to Senator Lees on 1 December last year.In short, the fact that one minister, Mr Tuckey, met with Pangea at their request is nothing to change the government's fundamental position. We will not take any other country's nuclear waste. Countries that receive the benefits of nuclear power should expect to make their own arrangements individually or cooperatively to dispose of their nuclear wastes. The government's policy has been clearly stated on many occasions, including a letter I forwarded to Pangea on 5 March 1999, which I am happy to table. I would like to quote the last paragraph of that letter in summary of the government's position, which states:Regardless of Pangea's views as to the suitability of Australia to host an international nuclear waste repository, the Government has no intention of considering Pangea's proposals for such a project.09:33:003069Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—by leave—I represent the shadow minister for resources, Mr Martyn Evans, in the Senate and I am obliged to respond to the minister's statement. It appears that the minister has informed the Senate as soon as he found out. It appears that he was incorrect in telling the Senate some time ago that no minister had spoken to Pangea.Mr Tuckey has now admitted that he had a meeting. It was downplayed by saying that it was in his electorate office in Western Australia. However, he is Minister for Forestry and Conservation and that is not an inconsequential ministry in terms of the issue of handling resources, the environment, et cetera, even though Mr Tuckey may not be one of Australia's leading green advocates or environmental protectors. In fact, he is probably the opposite.It would not be unusual for a company like Pangea to seek to have a meeting with the minister for conservation in the federal government. When they went down the list of 30 ministers, the minister for conservation would be one, I would presume, whom any company lobbying to get a decision to have nuclear waste stored in Australia would go to see.What I find extraordinary in the government process is that the minister for conservation decided it was not necessary for him to inform any of his other colleagues that he had this discussion or meeting or to seek the view of the minister who was actually responsible in policy terms—that is, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. I find it interesting to note, Minister, that you made no mention of whether Mr Tuckey informed his own department that he had a meeting.Is there a record of what Mr Tuckey said at the meeting with Pangea? Is there a note recording that he said, `No, this is not our policy'? Is there a note recording whether he said, `Maybe this is an interesting idea'? Is there a note saying that he would take this matter up with anybody? Or does the note say, `I am just the minister for conservation. I am going to take this nowhere. Thanks for coming to raise this with me. I am pleased to meet you and we have had a nice cup of tea, but forget anything I ever said. This goes nowhere'?I find it hard to believe that a personality like Mr Tuckey would sit there and say, `I have heard all of your representations to store high level nuclear waste in Australia and I am going to do nothing.' That beggars belief, Senator Minchin. If it had been a personality other than Mr Tuckey, your statement might have had some credibility—but not Wilson Tuckey, who has a record in this parliament and in politics for the Liberal Party. For example, he was the one who skited about having deliberately lied to do over John Howard.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Ha, ha!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—He said it on the public record, on Four Corners . He lied in 1989 to do John Howard over as leader. This man is not an unknown player in politics. So when he has a meeting with a company like this on such a sensitive issue, you cannot walk away from it.I realise that Mr Tuckey is a bit of an unguided missile in some ways, and he may have deliberately or unwittingly misled you or decided not to inform you of what he was doing. That has created a problem for you and you have had to get up and apologise to the Senate that you unwittingly misled—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—He didn't apologise; he just corrected it.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—He corrected it, and he has done the right thing. But he is dealing with a minister, a colleague, who has no idea of parliamentary propriety or parliamentary rules. It would not worry Wilson Tuckey if he misled— 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Mr Wilson Tuckey, please.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—It would not worry Mr Tuckey at all if he misled half a dozen cabinet ministers and his colleagues if he thought there was a political advantage or if it was something that he was interested in. So we would like to know, Minister—you did not say it in your statement, although I have not had a chance to read your statement carefully—what was the record of the meeting? Are you telling us that Mr Tuckey met this company unaccompanied by anybody else and took no notes of the meeting? I find that hard to believe. And if he did do that, he is clearly an incompetent minister on such a sensitive issue.AW5CARRSenator Carr—No officials with him.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—No officials, not even an electorate secretary. Did he make no notes afterwards? Senator Minchin, have you sought from Mr Tuckey any details of the meeting and the nature of the discussion to check that he did not even stupidly or inadvertently agree to give encouragement to Pangea that they could look forward to further success in Australia? I think your statement, though it corrects the fact that you inadvertently misled the Senate because of Mr Tuckey's activities, exposes the fact that this government again in process are a bunch of incompetents. Why would any minister, even a junior minister, proceed to have a meeting without telling anybody else? Even though he did not tell you beforehand he was having a meeting, which I find extraordinary, he should have sought your view, your advice, about how he should respond.Secondly, even when he had the meeting, he did not tell you that there was a meeting until, apparently, only the last 24 or 36 hours. Again I find this extraordinary when he had the meeting not last week or two weeks ago, but—as I think you said in your own statement—on 5 November 1998 when he met with the representative of Pangea. That is four months ago. It has taken four months for his office to let you know that he had a meeting. And even though you are already on the record in the Senate as saying there has been no meeting with any other ministers, this is another example that the executive in this government are a bunch of incompetents.I can understand it maybe slipping through if it was a very minor issue. The Pangea issue, which involves putting the world's highly radioactive nuclear waste in this country as a permanent deposit, is not a minor issue. It is a top `up in lights' issue, and Mr Tuckey wandering around having these meetings and not telling the senior minister with the policy responsibility is an appalling indictment of the process. We hope, Minister, and I seek now that you will agree to provide us with information—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Address the President; you can't talk to the minister.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Through you, Madam President, to the minister: we ask the minister to provide further information to the Senate about any details of notes taken at the meeting of the nature of that meeting, what officials were present, whether those notes that they took were passed on to Senator Minchin's department and when they were passed on. It is just too glib to say, `I was inadvertently not told by a ministerial colleague' on such an important issue. We thank the minister for informing the Senate that he accidentally or inadvertently because of ignorance misled the Senate, but what he has done is expose this government as being incompetent.09:41:003071Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—by leave—Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for letting us know at a time that I understand and believe is as soon as he found out about this meeting. But I do find it rather extraordinary that someone of Mr Tuckey's reputation as a very active politician could have a meeting that he told no-one about and briefed no-one on. So perhaps, if we are not looking at federal level, we should be looking at state level, and I wonder what sort of pressure will be coming from the state government of Western Australia onto the federal government.When I look at the letter from Senator Minchin—which I thank him for—it assures us that it is not the government's intention to accept any waste whatsoever, and again I thank him for that. But let us look a couple of years down the track. Knowing the pressure that is coming from Britain, combined with pressure from state governments such as Western Australia, I think we may then have a whole different ball game.09:42:003071Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—Madam President, I do not intend to hold the Senate too long. In relation to the meeting which took place, I would like to let honourable senators know that it is clear that some advice may have been given during that exchange. Whether or not Mr Tuckey actually said, `Yes, you will get acceptance from this government', is not clear. In fact, it is likely that the current policies and some political sensitivities or sensibilities were passed on.However, it seems the Pangea management may have taken heart from whatever meetings they had. We know, and it has been admitted now, that there was ministerial contact with the Western Australian government. We now know for sure that there was ministerial contact with this government, even though at this stage it has only been admitted that there was the one minister involved. We do know that there was some departmental contact from a federal level. That has been admitted as well.However, on 1 March 1999 a statement was issued by the management of Pangea in Tucson to a conference of potential proponents of the project. The indication from that conference on 1 March was that this is not dead in the water. In fact, it seems that preparations are going ahead to get the proponents ready. Maybe that was the advice—that you go ahead, make it seem like it is a goer in terms of its financial backing, get as many governments on board as you can, use in particular the emotive issues of the problems with nuclear waste in the former Soviet Union, and eventually, when that seems to be a very strong argument, the Australian government might be able to say, `Well, we have had representations from this government and that government, and these particular proponents have their money on the line.'It is quite clear that whatever advice was given to them by Minister Tuckey has not been such as to make Pangea believe that the Australian option is dead in the water. It is not as if Australia is one of the options which Pangea is looking at; as far as I can see, Australia is the main option.My belief is that they are looking at what they consider to be the political stability in Australia. From my reading of the situation, it seems that stability is related to whether or not either of the two political parties believe that a minimally engineered solution is acceptable for nuclear waste. That is what has been put up by ANSTO. That is what has been put up constantly in inquiries—that somehow or other there are departments within the Australian government, and have been for years, who believe you can use the environment as a protection against nuclear waste, that as long as you have got a remote enough area with, on average, a dry enough climate, you can use the environment for hundreds of thousands of years to protect against nuclear waste and the leaching of radioactive materials into the water system.That, of course, is not the truth. It cannot work that way. However, the very fact that successive Australian governments have been willing to listen to the argument that you can have a minimally engineered remote site for a national waste dump may well be giving heart to the Pangea operatives, who themselves are talking about a minimally engineered site within Australia.Those are the issues. The question that needs to be asked is: what advice was given by Minister Tuckey to Pangea? That is what the community and the parliament of Australia deserve to know.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I seek leave to make a brief statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Could I seek leave to make a very short statement before giving leave to Senator Brown?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for the minister to intervene?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Leave is not granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Brown to contribute?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Leave is not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I seek leave of the Senate to move a motion to take note of the minister's statement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Again, I seek leave, before responding to Senator Brown's request, to make a short statement about the process that is being embarked upon.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He had the call.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown had the call first.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Well, the answer is no.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Leave is not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I want to put on the record what is happening here. I did not refuse leave to the honourable senator to make a statement. However, he is refusing me leave because somebody else has refused him leave. It is a very unsatisfactory set of circumstances when one senator is being denied an opportunity to speak on an extremely important matter because of an across-the-chamber disagreement in which I am not involved. I would ask again of the government that I be given the opportunity to make a brief statement. There are heavy matters before us during this period. On many occasions leave will be sought to expedite those matters. We could very quickly find ourselves bogged down in refusal of leave and complicated processes which are quite unnecessary if this process continues.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—On the point of order, Madam President: I do not react to Senator Brown's threats. They never work. In response to the point of order, what I was seeking to say before giving Senator Brown leave was that Senator Minchin made a brief statement, by leave, correcting an answer. He agrees, and the government agrees, with the attitudes of all other parties here. There is no debate about whether the material will be allowed in. There is no substantive debate; nobody disagrees. Senator Minchin simply corrected a technicality. We allowed a repre sentative of the Australian Labor Party to speak. We allowed a representative of the Australian Democrats to speak. We allowed a representative of the Greens to speak. With respect, Madam President, the government's view would be that that is a fair go on a very technical matter by Senator Minchin. Because I appreciate the relationship between Senator Brown and Senator Margetts, we were going to ask that it be kept to a minimum and that that then would be it. We were going to allow leave. Otherwise this is going to go on and on with regard to a matter which is really a technical correction by Senator Minchin of an answer he gave. There is no dispute about the substantive matter.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam President, on the point of order: we gave leave to the minister because he had informed the shadow minister and others that he had to make a statement to correct an inadvertent, as he put it, error in his answer. We accept that a minister, or any senator, must be given the first opportunity to correct the record. However, when he made his statement we in the opposition thought there were a number of other issues which we still wanted clarified, such as whether there was a record, et cetera.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—There's a time for debate.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But we want to raise these issues when the statement is made. We have the right to do that; so do other parties. Madam President, I did not give leave to Senator Macdonald to make a statement because you had already given the call to Senator Brown to seek leave. My view would be that if, after Senator Brown had spoken, Senator Macdonald wanted to make a statement, he should be given leave. I do not believe that this is just a slight technical matter. Senator Minchin has done the correct thing, but the issues involved in this, and how Mr Wilson Tuckey stumbled into this, if that is the best motive you can put upon it, mean that issues have been left undecided. We want them resolved and information provided. We believe that you cannot deny the fact, whether you agree or disagree, that both Senator Margetts and Senator Brown have been very strong protagonists on this issue in the com munity. We do not think it is unreasonable, in the short time that is being taken, for him to seek leave to make a short statement. We have now wasted more time, Senator Macdonald, because of your intervention. Senator Brown would have completed his remarks and we would have got on with the business of the Senate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The situation is that I had called Senator Brown and he was seeking leave to make a brief statement on this matter. Is leave granted for Senator Brown to make a statement?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Yes.Leave granted.09:52:003073Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the Senate. The one issue that is glaringly awaiting a response is the Prime Minister's involvement in this matter. He had recently appointed Mr Wilson Tuckey as his Minister for Forestry and Conservation—his adviser on conservation. Along comes Pangea, a multinational corporation which wants to make Australia the global nuclear waste dump, and meets the minister for conservation in his office in Perth. I cannot believe that this matter was not reported to the Prime Minister. We know Mr Tuckey has had a series of meetings with the Prime Minister since then on other matters, including logging. I cannot believe that this matter was not raised with the Prime Minister by Minister Tuckey.The air needs to be cleared. Both the Prime Minister and Minister Tuckey need to come clean with the public as to how extensive the reach of Pangea was through Mr Tuckey's office. Did it not go right through to the Prime Minister? What further arrangements have been made to keep communications going with the minister for conservation in this country? I am not going to trespass into commenting on the qualifications of Mr Tuckey for that role. The fact is that he was appointed by the Prime Minister not long before this meeting took place. I, for one, do not believe that he did not report this meeting to the Prime Minister and therefore the Senate has been unwittingly, through you, Minister, misled about the level of negotiations that took place there.As previous speakers have said, this is an inordinately important matter. If Mr Tuckey did not report to the Prime Minister he has been derelict in his duty—absolutely derelict in his duty. It is a matter which the Prime Minister has to decide on. But can you imagine being Prime Minister of this country and your minister for conservation meets Pangea, which is proposing that Australia become a global nuclear waste dump, and does not report that matter to you? It calls for instant dismissal if that is the case. I believe that he has reported to the Prime Minister. We know there have been consequent contacts between Pangea and the government. The whole matter needs a more thorough airing than it has had in here today.09:56:003074Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I thank the Senate. The minister has tabled an important statement here today and I certainly appreciate him outlining these facts to the Senate. It is a big issue to the Australian people, as all senators would be aware, and it is a matter of ongoing concern to the Democrats that clearly there is a serious attempt by significant organisations to establish a nuclear waste repository in Australia.The government to date have indicated that they have not had any meetings with any significant groups about this proposal. This statement indicates that that has not actually been the case. I appreciate that Senator Minchin, as minister, cannot have eyes in the back of his head and know exactly what everybody else in his party and in the ministry is doing on any particular day, but the fact is that this meeting took place on 5 November last year and advice was provided to Minister Minchin's office only very recently. That is a very long time for Mr Tuckey to take to get around to mentioning the fact that he had met with some people who may want to establish a nuclear waste dump in Australia, particularly given that the minister is from Western Australia, one of the areas that potentially could be affected by that.It may be the case that Mr Tuckey has no role at all in the process of approving the importation of nuclear material into Australia, but it does make one wonder why, in that case, he would be willing to meet with people about that. Perhaps spending his time meeting and talking with people on things completely outside his portfolio and area of responsibility is a common activity Mr Tuckey engages in. I would have thought that that would be an issue of concern to the government; it is certainly an issue of concern to the Democrats to have a minister of the Crown going around meeting with people outside his area of responsibility and telling the appropriate minister about it three months later, particularly when the issue is of such significant importance to Australia and the Australian people.The Democrats, as we have repeatedly said, welcome the public statements that the minister has made in the past ruling out a nuclear waste dump. At the same time it seems very curious that, if the government's opposition is as categorical as some of the public statements would indicate, Pangea in particular and the people who are putting a lot of money into Pangea would be continuing to pursue the option over and above other options around the rest of the globe. Their own material has indicated that they have targeted Australia as the most suitable place not solely on geological grounds but because of the indications they have gained from high up officials in Australia that it is an option worth pursuing. It now becomes a bit clearer why they feel that it is an option worth pursuing. It may be the case that Mr Tuckey did not give an indication of support, but it is hard to believe that he would have given an indication of complete opposition along the lines that Minister Minchin has given. In that case, we are wondering whether there is one message being communicated publicly from one part of the government and another being communicated privately from another section of the government.I am sure that the government would not suggest that Minister Tuckey has no significance, no power, no authority, no real relevance and is just a curiosity that does not really count. Some other people may wish that that was the case, but I imagine that all ministers are significant people in the machinery of government, and for any minister to meet with an organisation about such a serious matter obviously indicates that it is something that they give importance to. I am sure Minister Tuckey has a reasonably busy schedule and does not just meet with anybody who rings up and asks to meet with him about anything. In that circumstance, surely this gives a clear indication that at least at one level of the government, and at quite a senior level, at the ministerial level, this is seen as important. There are indications, but how strong those indications are is something that is not clear from this statement. That has not been made clear by the government. There have obviously been indications of some strength from Minister Tuckey that this is an issue that is worth Pangea's while to continue to pursue.Whilst the Democrats welcome this clarification from Minister Minchin, from our point of view it raises further questions and further concerns about just how real a possibility down the track such a nuclear waste dump may be, particularly when one links it with the current government's support for expanding Australia's role in the production of nuclear waste by selling more uranium to people around the world. I restate the Democrats' complete and total opposition, publicly and privately, and at all levels, to the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Australia.As I said, we welcome this clarification from the minister. In many ways, it highlights the even greater need to have complete and total openness from the government about exactly what was said, who was present and exactly what the message given to Pangea was from government officials. The statement says that no minister has met with Pangea—other than Minister Tuckey—but have there been other government officials, departmental officials or other people who, on behalf of the government, have met with Pangea subsequently and have given indications privately that may be at odds with the strong public statements of the minister? I think those facts also need to be highlighted and made public to ensure that all of us can be as confident as we would like to be of the veracity of Minister Minchin's public statements about the possibility of establishing a nuclear waste repository in Australia.Bills3075s2023075Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.307510:03:003075Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I table the explanatory memorandum and I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to insert offences relating to slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual services. The importance of this bill is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that its provisions will be inserted in Chapter 8 of the Code, which is the chapter that deals with crimes against humanity.Slavery offencesAt present, the law in Australia on slavery and the slave trade is governed by four 19th century imperial acts which employ archaic language and relate to outdated circumstances and institutions that have either changed or long since fallen into disuse.In 1990 the Australian Law Reform Commission released report No. 48 on Criminal Admiralty Jurisdiction and Prize, in which it recommended that the 19th century imperial acts be replaced with modern and concise Australian statutory offences. Modern Australian slavery offences will ensure that Australia's international obligations are fulfilled, and that the elements of the offences and the penalties that apply are clear.This initiative has the support of all Australian jurisdictions through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which has endorsed my proposal to enact modern slavery offences.The slavery offences in the bill prohibit engaging in slave trading and possessing a slave or exercising any other power of ownership over a slave. The definitions of `slavery' and `slave trading', are based on the definitions of corresponding terms in the 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (and its 1953 Protocol) and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery , the two key international agreements on slavery and the slave trade. However, the bill definitions will be expanded in two important respects.First, the bill definition of `slavery' has been expanded to make it clear that slavery can also arise from a debt or contract. It is not sufficient for the debt or contract to be exploitative or oppressive to qualify. Rather, it must be such as to place a person in a condition whereby a power attaching to a right of ownership is exercised over her or him.Secondly, in relation to the `slave trading' offence, the definition of that term will include `. . . exercising control or direction over or providing finance for' the trade. This will ensure that those who lie at the heart of the trade—the organisers, managers and financiers—will be caught by this offence.It is important to make the point that, although this bill contains separate offences to address the conduct I will refer to shortly as sexual servitude, the slavery offences may also apply if the control over the sex worker is so far-reaching that it effectively amounts to a right of ownership over her or him.The maximum term of imprisonment for the slavery offences is 25 years. In view of the heinousness of the crime involved that penalty is more then justified.Since the new slavery offences will be replacing the old imperial acts, the bill contains provisions for their repeal. However, as a precautionary measure, the bill also includes a provision which declares that slavery will remain unlawful and its abolition maintained after the imperial acts have been repealed.Sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offencesIn addition to the modern slavery offences, the bill includes a range of model offences to deter the impact on Australia of a growing and highly lucrative international trade in people for the purposes of sexual exploitation.Essentially the trade involves recruiting persons from one country and relocating them to another to work as prostitutes in servile or slave-like conditions for little, if any, reward. Young women are the primary target of this insidious trade but, tragically, children are also falling victim to it in increasing numbers.Over recent years the world has seen a disturbing increase in this appalling activity. There are few countries today that are not in some way affected by the trade and sadly the indications are that Australia is becoming an important destination for its victims.Australia has obligations under a wide range of international instruments to prohibit servitude and the trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation. These include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 , the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 .Intelligence from Australian and overseas sources confirms that the problem is a significant one for Australia. In August 1997, the AFP reported that in the previous 18 months it had received information of 14 possible cases in this country. The NCA has also reported that it is aware of eight possible cases over the period from December 1992 to November 1996. Those cases involved 25 women, one of whom was allegedly a 13-year-old girl brought to this country from Thailand to work as a prostitute to repay her father's debt.We must not wait for what is already a significant problem to become so firmly entrenched that it proves to be impossible to rectify in the future. The stakes are too high. Australians are rightly proud of their record on human rights and what is involved here are serious violations of fundamental human rights.Our intelligence is that the recruits come mainly from South-East Asia. The poorer regions of the world are fertile ground for potential victims desperate to escape poverty and unemployment.In many cases recruits are aware that they will be employed as sex workers but they are usually unaware of the conditions under which they will be required to work. In other cases recruits are deceived into believing that they will be engaged in other work, only to be forced into prostitution when they arrive in Australia.What do they find when they arrive in this country? The reports I have received paint an ugly picture. For example, once in Australia recruits are often placed under heavy security and their movements strictly controlled. Those that are fortunate enough to live away from the brothel premises frequently find that they are driven by guards to and from work and are not free to go elsewhere. Others live and work almost entirely at the brothel. The recruits are rarely allowed time off work and have little or no control over how many clients they service a day. Many are not free to reject a client or to determine the conditions on which they service them. Unsafe sexual practices are regularly imposed on them and as a consequence they live under the constant fear of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Their passports and other travel documents are frequently taken from them and transgressions are often met with intimidation, violence and threats to harm them or their families or to report them to immigration authorities.There are various pay arrangements between the sex workers and organisers but in most cases the recruits are placed under a debt to the sponsors, allegedly for the costs of airfares, arranging false travel documents and for ongoing expenses, such as accommodation and board. The sex workers are frequently required to fully repay the debt before they can retain their earnings. In many cases the recruits are not informed of this until they arrive in Australia. As a precautionary measure the sex worker's earnings are usually paid directly to the sponsor or parlour owner.The debt is usually far in excess of the sponsor's actual expenses and is often unilaterally increased in response to some transgression on the part of the sex worker. In some cases sex workers have complained that their debt is in the region of $40,000 to $50,000 and in others that they would have to service up to 500 clients before they could discharge their debt. In many cases recruits are detected by the authorities and deported back home before they receive any payment for their services.The AFP has reported that there are a number of syndicates and individuals in Australia engaged in sex trafficking and many have been operating in this country for many years. The organisers use sophisticated methods and appear to have links with international crime syndicates and major drug traffickers.Large untaxed profits are made by the organisers and large sums of money are transferred by them overseas. Investigations show that the gross cash flow to organisers of the trade could be in the region of $1 million per week, much of which is transferred overseas.Although the problem in this country mainly involves persons being trafficked to Australia, it saddens me to have to say that our own citizens are not immune from this insidious trade. Last year the AFP reported that it is aware of a number of cases where women have been recruited in Australia to work overseas as prostitutes under servile condi tions. Further, the evidence is that many of those were deceived into believing that they would be employed as `hostesses' only to be forced into prostitution when they arrived at their destination. It would be intolerable if this legislation protected persons brought to this country but did not afford the same protections to our own citizens. Accordingly the bill includes a provision that applies the sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences to cases where persons are recruited from Australia to work as sex workers overseas.My advice is that current Commonwealth, state and territory laws have not proved effective to discourage the growth of this activity in Australia. There are a number of reasons for this. First, sex trafficking to and from Australia is part of a large and increasing international trade so that although existing laws may address some aspects of the domestic activity, they do not address the core of the problem—the international conduct. Secondly, the primary focus of relevant prostitution and migration offences is on the persons subjected to trafficking, such as the illegal immigrants or the sex workers, and not on the traffickers. Thirdly, although existing state and territory laws, such as assault and false imprisonment, may apply to the offenders directly involved, the organisers and recruiters are less vulnerable to prosecution because their involvement is remote from the exploitative prostitution.If we are to discourage this activity in Australia we need offences that are specific to the problem and address both the international and domestic aspects of the trade. Most importantly, we need offences that target the traffickers that recruit, organise and profit from those engaged in sex work in slave like conditions.In December 1997 I asked the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to consider a legislative response to the problem of sexual servitude in Australia. It referred the issue to it's subcommittee, the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee. That committee released a discussion paper in April last year that broadly endorsed a strategy to enact a package of Commonwealth, state and territory offences directed at the whole trade and not just aspects of it. A nationwide consultation process followed and over 50 submissions were received from a wide range of sources, including the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, sex worker organisations, child welfare, Aboriginal, religious and women's groups and concerned citizens. I am gratified to say that a large majority of the submissions supported the proposed legislative package.The final report was submitted to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in late 1998, which I released in January of this year. The sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences in this bill are based on the model offences recommended in the final report, and are the Commonwealth's part of the proposed package of uniform Commonwealth, state and territory offences which deal with the problem.The bill will create offences of:-1) causing a person to enter into or remain in sexual servitude;2) conducting a business that involves the sexual servitude of another person; and3) inducing a person to become a sex worker by deceiving her or him about the fact that the work will involve providing sexual services.However, the bill restricts the application of these offences to cases where an international element is involved. For example, where a person recruits someone outside Australia for sexual servitude inside Australia or conversely, where the person recruits someone inside Australia for sexual servitude outside Australia. The offences are confined in this way because corresponding state and territory offences will operate where the conduct and sexual services take place wholly within Australia.The `causing' offence in proposed subclause 270.6(1) is aimed at both those who are directly or indirectly involved in bringing about a person's entry into, or continued participation in, sexual servitude. The primary targets of this offence are the recruiters and brothel operators involved. But it would also catch those whose conduct contributes in a significant way towards a person entering or remaining in sexual servitude. However, the offence is appropriately confined because the defendant has to intend to cause, or be reckless as to causing, the sexual servitude. A person who inadvertently causes another's sexual servitude cannot be criminally liable.The offence is also confined by the notion of causation itself. Although the concept of causation in the criminal law is complex, it is a notion which is familiar to the courts. The connection must be sufficiently strong to justify attributing criminal responsibility to the conduct (Royall v the Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378).The offence in proposed subclause 270.6(2) is perhaps the most important in the armoury because it targets the principals involved in the trade—the organisers, managers and financiers. Any person who conducts a business knowing, or reckless as to whether, it involves the sexual servitude of another, is caught by this offence. The term, `conducting a business' is widely defined to include persons who take part in the management of the business, or exercise control or direction over it or finance it.The central element of the sexual servitude offences is, of course, the notion of `sexual servitude'. That term is defined as the condition of a person who provides sexual services and who, because of the use of force or threats, is not free to (a) cease providing sexual services; or (b) to leave the place or area where she or he provides the sexual services.There are a few points I would like to make about this definition. First, sexual servitude can only apply where the services are provided in a commercial context. However, it is not limited to prostitution but can apply to sex work generally, such as pornography.Secondly, sexual servitude can only arise if one of the two matters I have mentioned has been brought about by the use of force or threats.Further, whether a person is `not free' in relation to those matters will be determined on the facts of each case and in the context of the mischief the legislation is directed against. The fact that a person may suffer a penalty under the terms of a typical employment contract would not of itself amount to being `not free'. It is only if the force or threats effectively deny the person her or his freedom to leave or to stop providing sexual services that sexual servitude can be made out. In borderline cases, where there is doubt about whether a person was `not free', it is expected that the matter would be resolved in favour of the defendant.The difference between slavery and sexual servitude in the bill is essentially one of degree. To establish slavery it must be shown that the accused exercises a power of ownership over the victim. Sexual servitude falls short of ownership but the domination over the victim is such as to effectively deny her or his freedom in fundamental respects. For the sexual servitude offences in the bill criminal liability will only arise if the victim's freedom is denied in respect of one of the two matters listed in the definition.The next offence in the package of model provisions is the offence of deceptive recruiting for sexual services. That offence is aimed at those who recruit sex workers by misleading them about the fact that they will be employed to provide sexual services. For example, where a person tells a potential recruit that she will be employed as a hostess when in fact she is being recruited to work as a sex worker. The most important feature of this offence is that it does not include an element of sexual servitude. In other words, it is not necessary to show that the sexual services will be provided under conditions of sexual servitude in order to establish the offence.The purpose of this offence is twofold. First, it is aimed at a particular kind of social evil which is akin to the harms we commonly penalise as fraud, though it does not fall within the fraud prohibitions. Secondly, this method of recruiting is frequently a prelude to sexual servitude because often the ultimate purpose of the recruiter is not only to deceive the victim into working in the sex industry but also to force her or him to perform that work under conditions of sexual servitude. Seen in this light the provision is an important adjunct to the sexual servitude offences.I must add that I believe that this provision is especially important for the protection of the young because they are often the most vulnerable to the deceit and hollow promises of the perpetrators of this heartless kind of fraud.The penalties for the sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences are extremely severe and are a measure of the seriousness with which the government regards these abuses of our fundamental human rights. This government is firmly committed to the protection of children, particularly with regard to sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and this is reflected by the aggravated offence provisions that have been included in the bill. Those provisions allow the court to impose a higher penalty for those offences if the victim is under the age of 18 years. Therefore, for the sexual servitude offences, the maximum term of imprisonment a court can impose is 15 years unless the victim is under 18, in which case the maximum term increases to 19 years imprisonment. Similarly, for the deceptive recruiting offence the maximum term of imprisonment is seven years unless the victim is under 18, in which case the maximum term increases to nine years imprisonment.I would like to make some final points about the bill. The slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offences can be committed by non-nationals as well as Australian citizens and residents. In the case of the slavery offences they can be committed by both nationals and non-nationals, whether they act wholly inside or outside Australia or partly inside and partly outside Australia. For sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting the offences may be committed by both nationals and non-nationals who act wholly outside Australia or partly outside and partly inside Australia. Those offences will also apply to nationals or non-nationals who act wholly inside Australia if the sexual services are provided or to be provided outside Australia.The international nature of the trade in persons and the inherently evil nature of that trade satisfy me that the offences should have this application.However, to ensure that Australia's international relations are not adversely affected in cases where extraterritorial jurisdiction is invoked, the bill contains a standard provision that the Attorney-General's written consent must be obtained before a non-national can be prosecuted for a slavery, sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offence, if the relevant criminal conduct occurs wholly or partly outside Australia.The bill also includes a double jeopardy provision which provides that a person cannot be prosecuted for a slavery, sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offences in respect of conduct for which he or she has already been convicted or acquitted in another country for offences against the law of that country.Finally, since the offences in the bill are all indictable, the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 will apply. That act allows a court to order the confiscation and forfeiture of property used in, or in connection with, the commission of a relevant offence as well as any profits derived therefrom.As I have said, this bill is part of a package of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation directed at both the international and domestic aspects of the trade, with the main focus on those who recruit, organise and profit from this insidious trade. By enacting this legislation we will be sending a firm message to the organisers and recruiters that Australia will not be a destination for their trade. We will also encourage the rest of the world to do the same. Australia can be justly proud if it shows leadership to other countries affected by this inhumane trade.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills3079r697Billsr6653079Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.10:03:003079Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We are debating the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998. These two bills are the first of the over 17 bills that we expect to get with the ANTS package. Like Labor, we have agreed that these can be brought on early because of their content and because of their early starting date and in many senses they can be isolated from the rest of the ANTS package. As Senator Lees has indicated, we will support these bills being dealt with early, and we will support them overall, but with amendments.On the question of amendments, I want to make some remarks about the government's amendments before us, some 15 of them. The government have described these as technical amendments and many may be so properly described, but the fact is that they are amendments. I think that draws attention, again, to the process the Senate has undertaken with the ANTS package. The government's approach consistently has been that they have a mandate, that those bills have been passed after 20 hours of debate in the House of Representatives, and that those bills should be passed by the Senate without delay. The Senate's response has been that the complexity and the nature of these bills requires proper review. That review explicitly means that there will be amendments as a consequence.In Western democracies the very best governments do in fact put out bills in advance for consultation. That is a sign of a mature government. Indeed, the previous government and this government have at times done that. Amongst examples are the bills to rewrite the tax act in plain English and to review the corporate law. Recently, the republic bills have been put out for consultation and comment. That, frankly, is the mature way in which to deal with complex legislation. What the government has done by adopting the stance it has on these bills is to paint itself as immature. It is absolutely impossible for a government composed chiefly of lawyers without much business experience, and for a Treasury without much business experience, to get every aspect of those bills right, even from the government's perspective.There are always unintended and unforeseen consequences arising from complex legislation such as this, and I will predict that even on the government side there will be a deluge of amendments attached to the remaining bills to be considered later in this half-year term. I think we need a lot more statements about consultation and flexibility and a lot fewer about mandates and the bills being perfect, because they cannot be perfect, not from anybody's perspective. The early sycophancy which business has expressed over these bills is starting to give way to the reality of a critical assessment and a request for amendments to meet practical and unforeseen difficulties arising from the bills as presented to us. That is as it should be.I would urge the government to start to adopt a different kind of language, a more flexible and more mature language, in dealing with the remainder of the bills that come up because every time you present a sheet of 15 amendments—or the deluge that I anticipate will come later on—people are going to point at you and say, `Look, you said this was perfect. You said this should be passed immediately. You said that these bills were best practice and best assessed as they were originally,' and that cannot ever be so. Members of the government as well as non-government members have to recognise that the consequence of Senate review will be in fact to improve the bills and to make them more practical and better to operate in the world that taxpayers have to deal with.These two bills attack salary packaging using fringe benefits to avoid means tests within the tax and social security systems. The Democrats welcome that. As Senator Lees has pointed out, this has become necessary because of the use of salary packaging, particularly by high income earners, to try to avoid the high income earners superannuation tax surcharge. If ever there was an exercise that resulted in unnecessary pain, it was the introduction of that particular act in such a way as to avoid the matter being originally referred to as a `tax', which as a result has inflicted millions of dollars of expense on the funds who have had to manage it. When that consequence is assessed, it becomes rather hollow for the government to claim that other amendments that the Senate might seek to make to bills could cost the community money, because the government does not hesitate to cost the community money when there is a political issue at hand.I want to talk briefly about superannuation and salary packaging before returning to fringe benefits generally and specifically in relation to these bills. The inclusion of superannuation benefits on group certificates has long been a policy sought by the Democrats. Once superannuation is included on group certificates, not only will people who receive those group certificates be able to value more the benefit of the superannuation they receive—and consider it as part of their overall package—but we can then start addressing the serious anomalies in the tax treatment of superannuation. The anomalies arise because of the flat 15 per cent tax on employer contributions. That, like all flat taxes, gives a larger benefit to high income earners than to low income earners.For someone on the top marginal tax rates the super tax provides a 33 cents in the dollar tax break. For someone on the lowest tax rates it provides a tax break of just six cents in the dollar. As a result, a study by the Democrats in 1994 found that a third of the $3.9 billion of tax concessions flowed through to the top 10 per cent of taxpayers while the bottom 20 per cent of taxpayers received less than 10 per cent of the concessions. Then the superannuation high income earners tax surcharge was introduced, putting an extra 15 per cent on super contributions above $85,000. That was a blunt, partial attack on the problem but at least it was some movement away from a flat tax on super towards a more progressive tax rate.But the government, to use a colloquialism, stuffed it up. Instead of accepting the unanimous recommendations from the ACTU, the ASFA—which is a superannuation body—and most employer groups, all calling for the surcharge to be imposed on individuals by including superannuation on group certificates, the government imposed it on the funds. That meant that the funds have had to spend tens of millions of dollars in administration costs and compliance costs trying to get tax file numbers off members to tell the tax office which individuals need to pay the surcharge, then the ATO checks their income and tells the particular fund in turn how much to collect. It has been an administrative nightmare and a huge and unnecessary cost impost on funds. That has pushed grumpy high income earners into salary packaging to avoid it, hence the need for this bill.A far fairer way of dealing with the taxation of superannuation contributions, in our submission, would be to include contributions on group certificates and then tax employees at their marginal rate less the same flat rebate. That would ensure the same rebate for high or low income earners and provide a degree of progressivity for superannuation while still providing a healthy rebate as an incentive to put superannuation away. If the government is to be congratulated, firstly, on balancing the books and, secondly, on attempting to tackle much needed tax reform, the third bow, if you like, in Treasury policy should surely be to advance national savings. I would hope that superannuation and the issues attached to it will get increasing attention from government.I particularly support the inclusion of superannuation in the definition of assessable income for the determination of the high income earners tax surcharge. When we are talking about taxation of superannuation, why include fringe benefits but exclude superannuation from the determination of income? Targeting fringe benefits but not superannuation is switching on a different traffic light for salary packages after maximum tax advantage. This government, quite properly, has asked the Ralph committee to attend to principles of taxation to try to establish some common and consistent ways in which we should address these issues. Here is an issue on which we think the government is making the right decision: put fringe benefits where it belongs, on a group certificate, as part of the overall salary package. Why not superannuation as well? It is a major part of tax packaging.I hope that the Senate, in moving to close the loophole on fringe benefits in respect of the superannuation surcharge, also does so for superannuation. In our amendments which are to be circulated later today we have chosen not to include superannuation in the means test for HECS repayments. We have excluded HECS repayments because the HECS repayment schedule starts at such an appalling low level that any further impost would be to add to the gross unfairness of the repayment schedule.The changes to the HECS repayment schedule, also discussed by Senator Lees, provide a nice symmetry, an additional improvement to the bill. The bill should be absolutely about increasing the taxes paid by high income earners. That should be used to reduce taxes on the low paid. The issue of acute community anger about substantial numbers of Australians paying far too much tax and substantial numbers of Australians paying far too little tax is palpable. There is a common belief, an instinct, that those who are able to structure their affairs through companies and trusts and those who earn high gross income are getting away with paying too little tax; in other words, they are not paying their fair share.The HECS repayment—the tax on graduates, the tax on education—is a regressive impost which sees a large proportion of young workers under 25, on less than average weekly earnings, with average tax rates well above those of multimillionaires. Why is that sensible? Why is that something we should be doing? To us, it seems a profoundly wrong and misdirected policy. It is an issue we will revisit later in this tax debate and, I am sure, in the tax debates to come. For the moment, of the 1999-2000 income year, we propose interim relief to at least take out of the tax net those who are regarded by the tax and social security systems as low income earners.I said I would return to fringe benefits tax. One further fringe benefits tax change which I think needs to be addressed, if we are to put salary packaging to bed as a tax avoidance measure, is the removal of the concessional treatment of company cars. In 1996-97 the tax office estimated that this concession cost over $740 million. Why are we subsidising private car usage to the tune of $740 million?The Ralph business review has also acknowledged this as an issue that should be addressed, but I do not think the business tax review is necessarily the place for it to be dealt with, although it is quite proper for them to examine it as part of overall business interest. The FBT on cars is a salary packaging issue, a fringe benefit, and should be dealt with as part of the income tax reforms. It should not be offered up to pay for other business tax benefits. It should be dealt with to clean up and make more principled the way in which we deal with the income that individuals receive, whether in salary, in fringe benefits or in superannuation.Abolishing the concession, according to the tax office, would give us over $740 million. That could be used to address other things that the government has quite properly targeted in ANTS such as poverty traps, such as the 70 per cent taper on unemployment benefits. That would in turn provide a big benefit to business by increasing the supply of labour and taking the pressure off wages because the real income of low paid workers would go up without an impost on the companies concerned. It would provide benefits to low income earners by allowing them to keep more of their income and it would add to the progressiveness of the tax system by reducing the tax concession on company cars that tends to accrue more to high income earners than to low income earners.Another issue that has to be attended to in this matter of the taxation levels for individuals and how salary is to be addressed is the issue that the ACTU properly raised—it should be on the agenda for all of us—that is, bracket creep and the need for the threshold level to be at least parallel to the indexation that presently applies, so that you do not keep raising the taxation of individuals while holding the absolute threshold level down. That bracket creep issue, if addressed by the government, would do a great deal for their reputation among ordinary income earners.The other issue I raise briefly concerns the level of taxation. The government, Ralph and business cannot even begin to start discussing lowering tax rates, for instance to 30 per cent, until the community at large is satisfied that trusts, companies and high wealth individuals are paying their fair share: the community won't have a bar of it. I am sure the Senate will not have a bar of it either. We must pay attention to those issues before we can move to a climate in which we can talk about an overall reduction of top rates. I also believe, as Senator Lees mentioned, that we have to pay attention to a minimal tax rate.The effective tax rates of some major companies in this country are in single figures. They do not pay anywhere near a 36 per cent rate on their overall taxable profits. In this exercise that the government has rightly commenced, I say to the government: clean up the income tax area first and satisfy the community that you are doing the right thing by them in terms of fairness and equity. Then, as a community, they will be willing to look at the other issues that business is clamouring for.10:24:003083Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I thank Senator Margetts for allowing me to speak before her in the speaking order. The two bills before the Senate are part of a wide-ranging package being introduced by the government. They stand out as being rather ironic in themselves because the thrust of the package that the government will introduce is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Yet before us are two bills which seek to address anomalies—that is, to make those people who are now seeking to avoid the payment of tax pay their due taxation. The two bills, whilst a minor step to rake in some additional taxation and to catch those people who have been able to salary sacrifice and salary repackage to avoid the payment of taxation, will now be caught by the changes to the fringe benefits laws.The two bills before us raise a question of equity. Equity is very important. Those people with the greatest capacity to pay should pay the most taxation. Having listened to many of the speakers that have participated in this debate so far, one would not be wrong in forming the view that the people who have benefited previously have been the high salary earners who have been able to repackage their remuneration arrangements. There is a regulation impact statement summarised in the Bills Digest. I quote from item 1.164 because it sums up what has been happening:Employees who are currently subject to government surcharges, income-related obligations or who qualify for certain rebates, may have an increased liability as a result of this measure. Some employees may be subject to government surcharges and/or income-related obligations for the first time as a result of this measure, for example, where employees were avoiding such obligations by receiving remuneration in the form of fringe benefits rather than salary.The Bills Digest goes on to say:Salary sacrifice arrangements with a view to tax minimisation will be less attractive in consequence of the proposed changes which are considered in the following paragraphs.In that sense, the two bills before us are welcomed. Obviously they will overcome a loophole that has been absolutely gaping and through which many have driven, to their own advantage, their salary repackaging. This is a good move indeed but, when one looks at it as part of the overall package, one must have a quite cynical view that we are seeing the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor in a whole raft of bills. Yet the legislation before us, in some minimal way, seeks to redress the problems that have been created by the salary sacrificing that has taken place in recent years. This has been brought about in particular by the superannuation surcharge, or tax—as my colleagues have been at pains to explore.The opportunity for salary sacrificing has not been made available, nor was available, to low income earners. It has not been available to those who may well be on some fixed income. To see people rejigging their salary packages to avoid their proper share of taxation breeds nothing more than contempt and envy. This measure, in some small way, will go to removing the cynicism that exists in the public at large. People will now be caught by the provisions of the two bills before the parliament. Some small measure of tax justice will be achieved because those who have availed themselves of salary sacrificing and salary repackaging will no longer see that as being an attractive proposition.Of course, the legislation does not address the issues of trusts and those who are able to hide in the corporate sector. Nonetheless, it does begin going down the path of addressing some injustice. It is rather unfortunate that this is part of a raft of bills the thrust of which will be to shift the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor. For those people who may have had a dim view of the practices of those high income learners, the highest salary earners, to avoid the payment of taxation, the measures in both these bills are undoubtedly welcomed. I commend the bills to the Senate.10:30:003084Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This series of bills is aimed at minimising tax avoidance opportunities. In part, it responds to the widespread concerns amongst the community. PAYE taxpayers feel that they are the only ones paying their fair share of tax in Australia. I should add that PAYE taxpayers who cannot necessarily afford expensive tax accountants and lawyers perhaps pay more than others. They feel as if they do not have the ability to work the tax system, negotiate the most effective salary package and minimise their income tax as much as high income tax earners are able to do. The average worker does not have the money to pay the financial consultants, accountants and lawyers to devise elaborate schemes to evade the Australian Taxation Office or work out elaborate salary packages with their employer. The average taxpayer cannot take advantage of the many tax effective products that are flagrantly and aggressively marketed.This feeling that the benefits in our society are bestowed on a privileged few is borne out by recent studies that show the gap between rich and poor. The gap continues to extend. That is emphasised in a recent press release by ACOSS providing tax figures which show a divided Australia. This was released as recently as 17 March. The press release said that the figures lend weight to data that shows inequality is on the rise in Australia with the top 20 per cent of households receiving 50 per cent of private income and the bottom 20 per cent receiving only five per cent. I think the issue for many people is that they also see that some of the industries which get the most benefits from the taxpayers' dollar—I know this is the case in Western Australia—are often the ones that pay the least royalties tax and so on. People can see this. They do not have the figures in front of them all the time, but they can see that it is happening.These bills take a small step towards addressing concerns relating to tax avoidance at the big end of town. They mandate that employers must include the grossed up value of taxable fringe benefits totalling over $1,000 on group certificates. Previously, employers were only required to calculate fringe benefits tax on the combined amount of fringe benefits for all employees. These fringe benefits will not be subject to personal taxation; they will be included as income when calculating liability for the super surcharge, the Medicare levy surcharge, HECS repayments, child support and a raft of means tested social security entitlements such as family allowance and child-care assistance—and rightly so, in the opinion of the Greens (WA).The Greens are highly supportive of the reportable fringe benefits scheme as it will certainly help to improve the integrity of the tax system and the social security system. Certainly it is the view of tax experts that this new system will have the desired effect of minimising the rorts that can be obtained via salary packaging. It addresses the use of salary packaging to avoid super surcharge and levies and to assess rebates to which employees would not otherwise be entitled on the basis of their total remuneration. The main group of individuals affected by this measure are those on salaries between $50,000 and $75,000 who have a company car or other popular type of fringe benefit. While they are on the top tax rate and may pay the Medicare levy surcharge, they avoid the super surcharge that is phased in when the adjusted taxable income is $75,856 with a maximum 15 per cent surcharge kicking in above $92,111.For employers, this measure will undoubtedly increase compliance costs. There will be many things that require monitoring that are not currently monitored by employers. While some things will be relatively easy to track, some other elements such as the private use of pool cars, sales staff vehicles, employee use of corporate boxes at sporting events and office Christmas parties may be harder to monitor to allocate the value of the fringe benefit. Employees will also have increased compliance costs as they will have to ensure that employers have correctly reported their fringe benefits.The Australian Taxation Office compliance costs will also be on the up as they will have to match reportable fringe benefits and group certificates issued by employers with the fringe benefits tax returns of employers. Forms and computer programs will need alteration and training will have to be provided. In addition, it is likely that there will be a number of appeals against assessments of various surcharges and levies by employees. The government has indicated that, in the future, the reportable fringe benefits amounts will be used in determining a person's entitlement to government benefits, so there will also be a spill-over effect on the administration of the Department of Family and Community Services.As with all policy measures, it is necessary to weigh up the costs and benefits. While the increased compliance costs are clearly not insignificant, the Greens believe this negative is largely offset by a number of factors. First, there are monetary gains in the reduction of revenue leakage and, secondly, a reduction in tax minimisation opportunities will increase confidence in the integrity of the tax system as a whole as the tax system will be viewed as more fair and equitable.The Greens are, however, concerned about the limited consultation that has been undertaken on this measure. Significant concerns have been expressed by representatives of the accounting profession, industry bodies, charitable institutions and the taxation profession. Primarily, these concerns relate to the short amount of time for employers to implement the new system by the commencement date of 30 April 1999—that is, this financial year. Indeed, a number of lobby groups have urged the government to delay the FBT changes proposed in the two connected bills until April 2000. Although employers will have to record fringe benefits information from April this year, of course, they will not have to actually report fringe benefits on group certificates until April 2000. It seems that the commonsense approach would be that the next financial year would be a much more sensible approach for the start-up. The compliance costs issue was also raised and it is noted that these concerns have been addressed in part by excluding car parking benefits and benefits that constitute meal entertainment from this measure.One of the major concerns that the Greens have with this bill is that those institutions and employers that are currently FBT exempt will be required to report fringe benefits on group certificates. This includes public benevolent institutions such as charities. Around 23,000 public benevolent institutions and live-in residential care workers are exempt from FBT at present—and that comes from section 57A or section 58 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. This is a significant number.The major concern that the Greens have is compliance costs for these organisations and individuals. These organisations will have a proportionately higher increase in compliance costs than small, medium or large businesses. This is because previously PBIs have not had to report at all and thus would not have had a complex reporting system in place to comply with FBT liabilities. While they would have records for their own internal management structure, it would be unnecessary to go into immense detail. In addition, FBT liable employers are required to keep records for five years and explain all transactions and other acts engaged in by the employer or any other person which are relevant to ascertaining the employer's liability under this act.Whilst it is acknowledged that there have been some problems in the community sector in relation to salary packaging, in the main salary packaging is used by PBIs to give them a competitive advantage in the labour market and to allow them to offer their employees some semblance of reasonable salary, enabling them to attract a high standard of employees. Here we have the irony. The broader issue is the increase in compliance costs for the community sector that is associated with the rest of the ANTS package. There was overwhelming evidence throughout the GST committee process on the impact of the GST on compliance costs for the community sector. This is one of the problems about putting this in a piecemeal fashion rather than debating it all at once. We have raised similar concerns in the past in relation to the Ralph committee.Many in the community sector will be tax collectors for the government under their ANTS package. Many will have to set up a range of systems where they will have to deal with complex definitions of what amounts to a charitable activity and what does not. There are the same arguments that the government and many food and grocery retailers are using to say that food should not be GST free. Why are we listening to it in relation to some sectors—and that is fair enough—but not to others? The grocers say that any use of definitions makes the compliance costs skyrocket. Yet we know that there will be a whole range of definitions in what is GST free and what is not for charitable institutions and other nonprofit organisations. This is a huge concern for many of these institutions and one that the government should take seriously. Why do they close their ears to the community and open them only to business on these issues?What concerns me is that the government have targeted the community and not-for-profit sectors, environment groups and so on as able to bear these costs. It seems it is a very effective way of making life difficult for the community sector. We know that on a number of occasions there have been changes to legislation which effectively say, `Government—bad, community—bad and private—good.' This is the kind of Orwellian mantra that the government seem to be operating on: somehow or other the community sector is not as good as the private sector. They seem to think, `If we can just penalise the community sector enough, we will give that nice private sector the advantages they need in order to do what they do most effectively, that is, make money and profit.' There is something wrong in that logic and I think many people in the community have worked it out.What are the priorities of this government? The taxation changes are very indicative of where their priorities lie. The government are very concerned about compliance costs for small business—for instance, the car parking issue that we just dealt with in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill No. 2 and setting up the Small Business Deregulation Tax Force. This is certainly a legitimate concern and, indeed, the Greens (WA) have been highly concerned about small business and the compliance costs associated with small business, especially considering that small business is one of the strongest drivers of employment in Australia today. Often, when large corporations get benefits in terms of competitive advantage on trade issues, it is the Greens who have been standing up for small business and the impacts on it.The point is that the government are exceptionally sympathetic to the concerns of business, and especially large business. They have used the red tape argument with force on numerous occasions in relation to decreasing corporate governance provisions; for instance, with the Managed Investments Bill there was less transparency and fewer checks and balances for investors—the mums and dads of Australia.When the community sector wants to use the red tape argument, the government do not blink an eyelid. Extra compliance costs put an exceptional burden on this sector, which is often based on voluntary assistance. This sector is often the least equipped to deal with compliance costs. As I said, it is partly staffed by volunteers, it is scrimping for money and time, and it has lost a significant amount of government funding over the last term of the coalition. It is also a sector which often has to collect the problems the government have created. When the government create social problems, the community sector is left, often, to pick up the pieces.Similarly, we have seen the complexity of administration in relation to social security as the government have attempted to crack down on welfare cheats. In addition, we see the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, publicly going in to bat for the resources industry, when they have got a whiff that their accelerated depreciation provision may be in jeopardy. But what do we see from the minister, or from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or from the Minister for Health and Aged Care? Hello, are you there? Are these people also in cabinet fighting for the people they are meant to be representing and for the issues and values they are meant to be representing?The Greens welcome the government's initiative to counter tax avoidance. This bill attempts to tackle the salary packaging aspect that has been exploited in the past; however, we have a major concern about the government's general apathy in tackling some of the biggest issues in tax avoidance in Australia.The issues in relation to the free trade agenda are some of the biggest we have faced in our history. One of the biggest challenges that faces Australia and the world is the ability of transnational companies, their contractors and their skilled employees to massively avoid tax. This is done by exploiting differences between national tax regimes and by using tax havens to hide their true financial position from the tax office. Electronic funds transfer is facilitating this massive leak from national tax revenues elsewhere. A government with a real commitment to cracking down on tax avoidance will be talking about the tough decisions that need to be taken to curb this kind of revenue leakage.Let us look at the free trade agenda linkage. The government are trumpeting the fact that Australia is leading the world in bringing down tariff and non-tariff barriers. They have unilaterally reduced these rates, often to the detriment of many Australian industries and communities, and yet they shy away from being international leaders in progressive policy areas such as the Tobin tax, other international regulations of capital flows or strong stances on human rights, on the basis that Australia is just a middle power.For the benefit of those who do not know, a Tobin tax is looking at a tax on international speculative transactions—things like currency transactions that are happening on an immense scale. Even our own banks admit that they are doing much more business on the international market than they are doing on the domestic market. But what is the actual tax benefit that is coming to the countries whose citizens are involved in these transactions? Very little. The reason is that they are not controlled by any tax regime. Australia should be in there leading on this issue. The government is exceptionally reticent to deal with these issues; indeed, the government is actively interested in making it easier for transnationals to enter Australia and receive concessional treatment. Of course, Australia was there with the rest of the countries willing to sign the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, where corporations have been thwarted, just for the moment, in their race to the bottom. But the MAI moves forums and they are still negotiating in other forums for some sort of `in-principle' decision for countries to sign up voluntarily.We do support the principle of the bill, but we will be particularly watching the government's treatment of the community sector in the upcoming tax debate. It is simply not good enough that you single out a sector of the Australian economy, such an important sector of the Australian community—that is, the not-for-profit sector, the community sector—that holds together many of the aspects of the community that are being singularly attacked by this government. It is simply not good enough for the government to use tax to attack these sectors and that it is not listening to their legitimate concerns in terms of compliance costs.10:47:003087Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would like to thank all the participants in the debate on these new tax measures. These are important bills and it is appropriate that the debate be taken seriously, and that has happened. As highlighted in this debate, these bills are the first of the bills of the government's tax reform package to be brought before this chamber.The fringe benefits tax provisions are being amended to make the system fairer for all taxpayers. From the 1999-2000 income year, group certificates will show the full value of fringe benefits received when taxable value exceeds $1,000. These benefits will be taken into account when liability for surcharges and eligibility for assistance are being determined.I would like to foreshadow that the amendments already circulated to honourable senators will be moved by the government, and these amendments will result in a significant reduction in compliance costs for employers. I would also like to foreshadow that the government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Democrats or the Greens. These amendments, we understand, focus on such issues as the superannuation surcharge, HECS, and compliance costs for charities. There should be, in our view, no concern about these bills applying to the 1999-2000 financial year. The policy underlying the bills was announced in the ANTS document in August last year. The legislation was introduced in December 1998, giving time for preparation for the measures. The government also moved to pass the bills prior to the commencement of the FBT year to allow certainty, and acknowledges the support of the Senate in allowing this to occur.A number of issues were raised in the debate, particularly by the speakers for the Democrats and the Greens. These will be debated at length during the committee stage of the bill. As I said, I thank all honourable senators for their contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read second time.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That consideration of these bills in the Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Bills3088r6553088Consideration resumed from 23 March.The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill stand as printed. Before I call any speakers, I would advise that there is a running sheet for the amendments and, unless somebody wishes to speak in general terms, I will call Senator Evans for the opposition.10:51:003088Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do want to speak in general terms and perhaps allow those who are participating in the debate to gather their thoughts and their papers and perhaps even enter the chamber. I think I can probably win this debate at the moment, because I am not sure that Senator Kemp knows an awful lot about it and, despite my own inadequacies, I might just be able to sneak through on this one! I did want to point out that, as I understand it, the running schedule that we have may not include some amendments that Senator Harradine had foreshadowed he might move, and so I am not sure of the status of those. It would be useful to clarify, when Senator Harradine is available, whether those amendments are being proposed; and, if they could be added to the running schedule in the correct place, that would certainly be helpful. I have just been handed an amended running schedule, but it seems to be dated at an earlier time than the one I already had, so I am not sure if that is helpful.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I believe it is not yet up to date, Senator Evans, if you would like to keep—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I just noted that the one that is being circulated is actually even older than the one I have in my hand, so I did not know if that was going to be helpful.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The one I am working off is today's 9.28 a.m. one.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I had a 9.47 a.m. version already. I am not sure whether they are different, but I will check that in a minute. As I say, there is the issue of whether Senator Harradine is proposing amendments; if so, they obviously need to be included in the running sheet, as a preliminary matter.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine's amendments have arrived and have just been circulated.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Right. I have a copy now of Senator Harradine's amendments, but obviously we need to look at where they fit in on the running sheet. The other thing I was going to suggest, Madam Chair, is that the debate would be facilitated by the Democrats' first amendment, regarding the issue of the removal of the minister's power to approve premium increases, being moved first. As I understand it, the Democrats' position is, if you like, the stronger critique of the government's position, and I think the debate would be enhanced if in fact the Democrat amendment were moved first and the Labor Party amendment moved subsequently.If the Democrat amendment is carried, then the Labor Party amendment will lapse. It is our intention to vote for the Democrat amendment and so, for the purposes of an orderly debate, we ought to actually deal with the Democrat amendment first. As I say, if that is carried, then one or two of the Labor amendments actually become redundant, and it would allow us to have one debate rather than three or four debates that way. So I would suggest to the chair that, rather than have me move the first opposition amendment, the Democrat amendment regarding the regime for ministerial approval of premiums should be moved first, and that we should use that as the vehicle for the debate on that issue and then move to the votes. That way, we would not have to have the debate more than once.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Evans, for my edification can you advise me which Democrat amendment you are referring to when you say that it should be moved first?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—It is the one to clause 2, and it is about halfway down the first page.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No. 3, is it?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—It is the fourth amendment on the running sheet, clause 2, Democrats 1 and 2, sheet 1286. I think that is the relevant amendment. Someone should correct me, if that is not right.10:56:003089Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The suggestion that has been made by Senator Evans is eminently sensible. The amendments that I am proposing have in fact been sent to all parties, and they are actually on the desks at the present moment. Why they are not on the running sheet, I do not know, but I believe that that is being attended to right now.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—They had only just arrived in the chamber, and were only circulated just prior to your arrival in the chamber.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, but they were sent prior to that to the representatives of the various parties who are going to speak in this debate. I reiterate that the proposal put by Senator Evans, if satisfactory to Senator Lees, would be a desirable way to go.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Lees, have you been following this, and are you ready to speak?10:57:003089Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—In fact, what I should be doing is actually moving my last amendment, amendment No. 5, because amendments Nos 1 and 2 are subject to that passing, and they fall if it does not pass.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are in the hands of the committee. What do you wish to do, Senator Lees?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Perhaps I could help the committee by moving my amendment No. 5, which would basically mean that the minister will remain responsible for any increases in premiums.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are moving that schedule 3, page 19, line 2 to page 23, line 29 be opposed. The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed. Are you going to speak to that, Senator Lees?8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I did cover it in my speech, but I will go over it very briefly. With the amount of public funds—some $1.6 billion per year—going into private health insurance, either the current minister or whoever it may be in the future cannot walk away from having direct input into the actual cost of private health insurance. I do not think it can be handed over, either in part or in full, to the industry itself. The debate would be completely different if we did not have such a large amount of public money now going into this insurance product. It is an insurance industry that does need to be closely monitored and, in particular, the very price sensitive nature of its policies is the minister's responsibility.10:59:003089Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to indicate, on behalf of the Labor opposition, that we will be supporting this amendment. We have grave concerns about the government's proposal that ministerial approval of health insurance premium increases be deregulated. We have a series of amendments which seek to protect the public interest on the issue of premium increases proposed, but we think that the Democrats proposal is stronger and better. If that can find support in the Senate chamber, then we are happy to see that occur.If that did not occur, then we would seek to move our amendments, which at least try to provide some control over the government's deregulation and find a middle ground. But the principal issue, which is outlined in the Democrats amendment, is the one that we support—that the minister continue to have the ability to approve or not approve increases in private health insurance premiums.One can argue about how successful this has been over time. I think it is fair to say that it may not have been the most successful measure in controlling the premiums and the direction of policy adopted by private health insurance organisations. Senator Lees makes the point quite rightly, and I tried to emphasise this in my speech during the second reading debate, that we have just invested a huge amount of public funds in this industry—$1.7 billion of Australian taxpayers' funds. We have effectively bought a 30 per cent share of the private health insurance industry. We have taken a 30 per cent option in private health insurance. This is not the time for us to say, having made that massive investment, that we want to remove the Commonwealth's ability to monitor and effectively control movements in prices and the premiums charged.It is ludicrous to suggest that, on the one hand, you want to make a massive investment in an industry and, on the other hand, you wish to downgrade your effective influence on and control over that industry. It is vital at this point that we resist the government's attempt to walk away from political responsibility for premium increases in the private health insurance industry. It may well be that there are better public policy options available in terms of providing effective public influence over what occurs in the pricing of private health insurance, but clearly this is not the time to be walking away from the Commonwealth's involvement in this process. It is clearly not the time for us to be loosening our influence on an industry in which we have made such a massive investment.The opposition will be supporting the Democrats amendment. If that is defeated, we would obviously seek to move our amendments, which are aimed at ensuring at least some effective government control in the short term and resisting the push to full deregulation, as proposed by the government in its third phase. At this time the Democrats proposition is a much better one and that ought to be supported by the Senate.11:03:003090Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is no doubt whatsoever that the government have used what they believe to be the connection between the cost of private health insurance and the availability of the public health system throughout this inquiry. They said the reason that they were putting so much public money into the 30 per cent rebate was that this would have an immediate impact on reducing the pressures on the public health system. That was the reason that public money was going into this rebate through the tax system. They said that they were robbing Peter to pay Paul because this was going to be good for the public health system.It makes no sense, and the government is left with no credibility whatsoever, if they then remove themselves from any oversight of the costs of private health insurance after having put so much public funding into reducing the premiums—temporarily it would seem. It has been argued that there is nothing to stop increases in the future, which will erode all or almost all of the 30 per cent. Indeed we know that many people did not get the full benefit of the 30 per cent.We know that the government is using public funding, so this issue is one of public funding. We have just put public funding into this sector, so there is no way you can say that this is just a private matter and that this is just the private sector dealing with private issues. It is not; it is dealing with an issue that the government have said is intricately linked—whether they are to be believed or not is up to judgment now—to the pressures on the public health system.Many people have argued that this was a tenuous connection, but the government argued this. If they are then saying that they no longer need to look at what the cost of private health insurance will be or that they no longer need to have a direct influence over that, that is a bizarre statement. Quite frankly, it would be totally irresponsible in terms of accountability if the government turned their backs so quickly on this sector. It is simply not good enough. From the Greens (WA) point of view this is one of the most vital issues in relation to this particular legislative package. We will certainly be supporting the Democrats in removing this particular element of the bill.11:05:003091Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The long-term view of the government is that the only people who should decide the premiums that may be charged by a health fund are the managers and board of directors of that fund. These people, as is the case with all business activities, would be either rewarded or chastened for their decision. Ultimately, health fund members will decide whether the health insurance product is worth buying.The government is acutely aware of the extremely difficult circumstances that health funds find themselves in at the moment. In addition, the government has not forgotten the behaviour of the health funds after the introduction of the private health insurance incentive scheme. The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate is designed to assist in the stabilisation of health fund premiums insofar as increased membership levels take financial pressure off the funds.However, until that premium stability arrives, the government will, either through the department or through the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council, continue to closely scrutinise the premium rule changes made by health funds. Only at that time will the health insurance industry be able to escape the premium rule change scrutiny. The ACCC will continue to have a role in ensuring that premium increases are appropriate.The transfer of these functions to the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council will make its role more consistent with other government regulatory prudential organisations and regulatory bodies in general insurance. These changes in no way limit the government's primary responsibility as a policy maker. Therefore we will not be agreeing with the amendment of the Democrats on this particular matter.11:08:003091Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission actually have their hands tied in some respects in relation to the oversight of something like a health insurance body. The reason they have their hands tied is that they are dealing with the current Trade Practices Act. The current Trade Practices Act is limited as to whether or not something illegal is being done in order to collude to increase prices. This is very difficult to prove, as the minister may well know. In the issue of public interest it becomes an issue of competitiveness. It is defined in its own terms.Saying that the ACCC now becomes our protection for the already large amounts of public money that are being put into this sector is not good enough. I am really keen now to see what Senator Harradine's response is to this because it is a vital issue of accountability in relation to the spending of very, very large amounts of money on the private health sector. I am really keen to see where the Senate will be going on this issue.11:08:003091Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Of course I am supporting Senator Lees's amendments for the simple reason that those amendments will ensure that the government remains accountable for administration of health insurance premiums. I think accountability of government in this area of major public policy is essential. I really cannot see the logic in the government's schedule 3. It just does not work out, to my way of thinking, in any event. Too much, I believe, is left to industries at the present moment. There is not enough government accountability in many areas. I will be dealing with some of those areas in other measures. I will certainly be supporting Senator Lees's amendment. Question put: That schedule 3 stand as printed.11:14:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Campbell, I. G. Faulkner, J. P.MacGibbon, D. J. Cook, P. F. S.Reid, M. E. Hutchins, S.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.11:18:003092Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2):(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 9), omit subclauses (3), (4) and (5).(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 10), omit "or (3)". These amendments are consequential to the motion that has just been defeated.Amendments agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Evans, do you wish to proceed with amendment No. 1?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Subject to advice, I think my amendments Nos 1, 2 and 9 lapse, because they relate to the previous debate and Senator Lees's motion was carried.8U4LEESSenator Lees—I seek leave to move amendments (3) and (4) together.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?11:19:003092Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I ask a point of clarification on Democrats amendment No. 3. The Greens (WA) reading of the situation is that the section of the bill which the amendment deals with relates to removing waiting periods for people having health insurance. Amendment (3) reads:", provided that any action under this subsection that results in the extension of a waiting period applicable to a contributor or his or her dependent for an ailment, illness or condition . . . is prescribed in accordance with subsection (3)".The section relates to removing the waiting period, and the Democrats are asking that it not impact on the waiting period. I am wondering whether that is making as little sense to other people as it does to me. I am happy for the matter to be clarified.11:20:003092Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—That is why the two amendments need to be taken together. Basically, we are saying that the minister must take into account the actual impact of extending waiting periods on specific groups of people. It cannot just be done because a fund asks for it to be done. The minister has to look for some evidence that relevant illnesses and conditions are being subjected to the `hit and run' problems, which is the reason that the minister is saying that we need this in the first place.We propose that amendment No. 3 be inserted at schedule 1, item 6, page 9 so that the regulations for the purpose of this subsection in respect of an ailment, illness or condition must not be made unless the minister has taken into account the following matters—and then you read through what has to be taken into account. This means that a fund cannot say, `Right, we want a waiting period on a particular procedure because it's a very expensive procedure.' There actually must be some evidence that there really is a `hit and run' problem; that the funds are suffering; that it is not reasonable.We have also asked that the impact on the public health system be looked at so that the funds cannot use waiting periods to push people back into the public health system just because it is an expensive procedure. There must be genuine reasons for these waiting periods to be put in place.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee that leave be granted to move amendments (3) and (4) together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.Amendments (by Senator Lees)—by leave—proposed:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 11), at the end of subsection (1), add ", provided that any action under this subsection that results in the extension of a waiting period applicable to a contributor or his or her dependent for an ailment, illness or condition (including a pre-existing ailment) is prescribed in accordance with subsection (3)".(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 14), at the end of section 73BAA, add:(3) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) in respect of an ailment, illness or condition (including a pre-existing ailment) must not be made unless the Minister has taken into account the following matters: (a) evidence that the ailment, illness or condition is associated with opportunistic membership of health benefits funds; and (b) the potential for an extended waiting period to discriminate against people with the ailment, illness or condition; and (c) the impact of an extended waiting period on: (i) the principle of community rating; and (ii) the public health system. (d) such other matters as the Minister considers relevant.11:22:003093Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Generally the government agrees with these particular amendments; however, we do believe that Democrat amendment (4) needs a further amendment to add a subclause (d) at the end which would give the minister the ability to take into account other matters that are important in this issue. I therefore propose an amendment to add `(d) any other matter the minister feels relevant'.11:23:003093Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I thank Senator Tambling; that sounds reasonable. What sorts of other matters does he consider could come under that section (d), apart from the ones that we have talked about—the impact on people with a specific disability and the impact on the public hospital system. We do not want the funds creating waiting periods that will force people back into the public system for all the expensive procedures that they do not want to do. What other matters do you envisage coming in under (d)?11:24:003093Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is intended to be a catch-all to pick up broad matters and particularly any other unforeseen matters that could arise. This is an important area that requires careful handling by the various parties. It is intended to allow the minister to appropriately address other relevant issues.11:24:003093Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—We have picked up some of these concerns. I understand that your office has been speaking to my office. There is a revised sheet—1286 revised—and on the bottom of that we have put on a (d) which reads:such other matters as the Minister considers relevant.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We do not have that sheet here. It is my understanding that it has not been circulated in the chamber. As I understand it, you are moving amendments (3) and (4) and your amendment (4) actually contains a subclause (d).8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I will pass this to you and Senator Tambling now. It has apparently come out of discussions between our offices; I was just wanting some clarification.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—My understanding is that the amendment (4) which you have moved contains that particular subclause, rendering Senator Tambling's amendment unnecessary. The question is that Democrat amendments (3) and (4) be agreed to.11:26:003094Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting these amendments. It is sensible to allow this regulation to be included. Senator Lees has made the case and I do not want to delay the Senate by expanding on that. Before we get to a final vote, though, I want to be clear what (d) says and what I am voting on. I know we should trust the ministers to take into account any other matter they feel like, but for the purposes of a Senate debate we need to be clear on that. Generally we are in support of the original Democrat amendments; I just want to be reassured about what we are voting for in (d).11:26:003094Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—This has come out of discussions, but I was interested to get some specific details recorded in Hansard as to what may be in that ball park out there. Obviously we are still going to continue with it if we do not get that, but I was wondering what the minister might foresee in the future if there is a specific issue he is concerned about.Amendments agreed to.11:27:003094Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—In my speech in the second reading debate I pointed out a matter of rather serious concern to a number of people and it relates to a number of individuals, particularly the elderly and the chronically ill, who purchase health insurance as an assurance that their access to essential care and treatment will not be hampered. I want to be convinced that the legislation does not place barriers to this access, but I fear that it could indeed place barriers to that access by not clarifying the nature and scope of cover in areas of palliative care, rehabilitation and psychiatric care.I ask Senator Tambling, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care: what assurances are in place to ensure that the self-employed, self-funded retirees and the unemployed are not disadvantaged or charged relatively higher premiums so that other members can receive discounted premiums? That is not related to the amendment I am about to move, but before we get to that amendment I want to have that question clarified. Schedule 1 does allow registered organisations—the health funds—to offer discounted premiums to contributors based on administrative savings. I believe that this could apply in respect of a package, an arrangement made between a large conglomerate or organisation and a health fund. If, for example, a very large company was able to make administrative savings the health fund could make an arrangement with the company which provided for the subscriptions to be less.I want to find out from the government how this is likely to affect the self-funded retirees. I have been going through the length and breadth of Australia on the ANTS package and the taxation measures, and this whole question of self-funded retirees has raised its head. The question of compensation for them under that particular package has arisen, and it is disconcerting. I sometimes feel that self-funded retirees are becoming a forgotten race. My view is that that is totally unfair. Here is a group of people who have decided, for one reason or another, to retire before the normal age of retirement and they have taken action to ensure that their circumstances are such that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer. Yet under that particular measure—I know it is just a passing thing—these people will not get any compensation, yet they are doing a lot for employment in this country. One of the problems of unemployment is that there are more people seeking paid work than there are jobs available. Instead of giving a bonus for people to stay at work longer after 65, you ought to be giving a bonus to the people who decide to retire. Those are very often the self-funded retirees.I want to know, in respect of these particular people and the health of these people, what assurances are in place to ensure that the self-employed, self-funded retirees and indeed the unemployed are not disadvantaged or charged relatively higher premiums so that other members of the fund can receive discounted premiums.11:33:003095Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The issues raised by Senator Harradine's amendments are important. His amendments seek to ensure that older people and people with chronic illnesses are not restricted in their access to private health insurance. It is also important in this context to note, from the submission of the Australian Consumers Association to the Senate committee:The consumer association supports the general intent of the bill which will increase the flexibility in what health funds can cover in their policies and allow loyalty bonuses based only on the length of membership, not number of claims, which reaffirms the government's commitment to community rating.This issue is very important because in the bill itself community rating is reinforced by the bill. Community rating means that a health fund cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of age, sex, sexuality, illness, frequency of service usage and the level of benefits paid. However, it is possible to uphold community rating whilst also taking advantage of the efficiencies offered by new technology.Under this legislation, a health fund is only able to offer a discount where they can demonstrate that the discount has arisen from the management savings they have made. The aim of the exercise is to encourage more efficiently managed funds without harming community rating. Our legislation meets that objective. I do not believe that the Australian public views the offering of a modest discount as being a threat to community rating. The point should also be made that groups other than employee groups can take advantage of the administrative savings. The examples that have been given to me are the CWA, pensioner groups, Rotary or bowling clubs.Senator Harradine's amendments are appropriate in policy terms. However, they do not distinguish between people with pre-existing ailments and those with conditions that arise after a person has joined a health fund. Current policy and intended future policy is that people with pre-existing ailments are required to wait for 12 months before benefits are paid in respect of their pre-existing condition. Consequently we would recommend that the amendment be supported with an additional amendment at the end of the proposed paragraph (ja), by inserting the words `except where the psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation is in respect of a pre-existing ailment, illness or condition, as defined in paragraph (kc)'.I understand that those words have been discussed between government advisers and Senator Harradine's office. They would address a number of these issues. The intent is to ensure that people with psychiatric conditions, palliative care requirements or rehabilitation requirements can obtain access to private health insurance without putting at risk the financial position of funds by requiring them to cover such people where psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation requirements arise because of a person's pre-existing ailment—that is, where a person joins a health fund knowing that they need to have immediate access to psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation. I would hope that these comments address the concerns of Senator Harradine. I propose to move that amendment to Senator Harradine's amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Senator Harradine has not moved his amendment yet. If he feels like it, he may well do so.11:37:003095Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a query requiring clarification. When the minister says `a pre-existing ailment'—and in many cases it might be that it is an undiagnosed ailment that is pre-existing—can I have a clarification whether people will be penalised for having an undiagnosed pre-existing mental ailment?11:38:003095Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that this is a matter that would need to be referred specifically to the definitions with regard to the pre-existing ailment and that it is covered and addressed in that regard.11:38:003095Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I seek leave to formally move amendments Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name. Amendment No. 1 is just a formal amendment.Leave granted.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is that in the form suggested by the parliamentary secretary?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, I am moving it as it is at the present moment and then I will go to that other matter. I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 21), after "subparagraph (ka)(i)", insert "or paragraph (ja)".(2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 7), after item 9, insert:9A After paragraph (j) of Schedule 1 Insert: (ja) where the rules of the organization provide for a waiting period with respect to contributors for benefits in accordance with an applicable benefits arrangement of the organization and the benefits are in relation to psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation, that waiting period will not exceed 2 months.In effect, I am suggesting that you insert a new paragraph (ja). As indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, I am proposing those particular amendments to really ensure that changes to the health insurance legislation do not alter the existing waiting period for people seeking psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation.I have mentioned on a number of occasions that health insurance for many elderly, chronically ill and vulnerable people is purchased to assure them of timely access to essential care, and I do not want to see any government amendments to the legislation that will put in place barriers to that access. In its present form and as things presently stand, there is potential for health funds to limit access to palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation. It is the responsibility of the parliament and indeed of the government to guarantee that the weakest in our community are not disadvantaged any further.I am moving those particular amendments in their current form. What the government has proposed is an addendum which, I now see, says `except where the psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation is in respect of a pre-existing ailment, illness or condition as defined in paragraph (kc)'. I too would like to hear a further explanation by the minister of that. It may well be that the government may wish to move an amendment to my proposition.I think that the government does have a point in respect of other areas, but this says `except where the psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation is in respect of a pre-existing ailment, illness or condition as defined. . . '. I suppose being in the parliament—in the Senate—for a huge number of years might lead one to develop a condition which at a particular stage could manifest itself in a way that requires psychiatric care. It does really come down to the point that Senator Margetts makes: what if the condition is not diagnosed prior to membership of the fund? I would be happy to hear an elaboration of the definition which is in paragraph (kc).11:43:003096Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is important to look carefully at the amendment that I am proposing to Senator Harradine's amendment because the government amendment will maintain the status quo, which is most important to preserve in this issue. We are concerned that, whilst we support the tenor of Senator Harradine's amendment, as it stands it could in fact militate against assisting the very people that Senator Harradine is addressing.When Senator Margetts raised the issue, I did not have handy at the time the clause to which I think we should be referring. The government's foreshadowed amendment refers to paragraph (kc) of the act. Let me read that paragraph. It says:For the purposes of paragraph (k), a pre-existing ailment is an ailment, illness or condition the signs or symptoms of which, in the opinion of a medical practitioner appointed by the organisation, existed at any time during the 6 months preceding the day on which the contributor began contributions to the organisation for:(i) benefits in accordance with the applicable benefits arrangement referred to in that paragraph; or (ii) if applicable, benefits in accordance with the previous benefits arrangement referred to in paragraph (ka).We could probably go around in a circle here between all these various subparagraphs. I appreciate it is often a lawyer's nightmare to do the tracking, but I think we are of the same mind in seeking to assist the people to whom Senator Harradine has rightly drawn our attention who are in the situation of requiring psychiatric care, palliative care or rehabilitation. I believe we are trying to finetune the amendment in such a way as to assist those particular people, yet, at the same time, recognise that we ought not impose on the health funds financial impositions that could almost, in effect, send them broke.11:46:003097Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not sure that the minister's explanation has made me feel more at ease. I am concerned that paragraph (kc) will require that individuals become their own diagnosticians: if they have signs or symptoms of an ailment, somehow or other, even before they know enough about it, they are supposed to know that they have an ailment which requires treatment. One of the issues that springs to mind is breast lumps. In many situations there are women who have breast lumps due to a variety of causes. For some women over the age of 35 this can mean that they are aware of the fact that they have had a breast lump in the past or have a series of breast lumps which are benign. If it could be proven that a lump was obvious, or could have been obvious in the past, and was not one of those other benign lumps which they had, what then becomes the use of that definition?The issue of mental illness is one that, in many cases, may be obvious to other people but is not necessarily obvious to the person who requires treatment. Sometimes people need to put a level of careful pressure on a person to seek treatment. It may be obvious to a professional or to other people that a person needs to seek help but it may not in any way be obvious or evident to the person who is suffering from that mental illness or other kind of illness. I think we have a problem in inserting paragraph (kc) because, in the end, it will put pressure on people somehow or other to be their own diagnosticians.11:47:003097Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that it was our intention to vote for Senator Harradine's amendments. It is still our intention to vote for his amendments. I am yet to be convinced by the government's argument and that is because I am not quite sure that I understand it. We need to be much clearer about what the government thinks it is achieving by this amendment.I would have thought that Senator Harradine's amendments went to the question of waiting periods and that what is intended by that is quite clear. It seems the government amendment goes to the question of pre-existing conditions. I would have thought the current rules relating to pre-existing conditions would continue to be applied and not be affected by Senator Harradine's amendments. I may be completely wrong on this, but I do not get the point of the government's amendment. I have concerns about what it might mean. I suspect the government is going to need to do a bit better in explaining it if they hope to have it carried. Certainly, my current inclination is that I do not know what it means. I am not sure what the effect will be and on present indications, therefore, I would vote against it and press on with Senator Harradine's amendments. I think he has made the case quite clearly for them and we are prepared to support them.As I say, I am not ruling out supporting the government amendment but I do remain to be convinced what the argument actually is and why the current pre-existing conditions rules would not continue to apply. As for the handwritten government amendment, I think it is going to require a clearer explanation for the opposition to be able to support it.11:49:003097Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is very important to recognise that what we are seeking to do is maintain the status quo in respect of these issues. The pre-existing ailment clause has been in the act for a long time and is important in its contribution. Senator Harradine's amendments, unamended by what we are proposing, would have the effect, I am advised, that they could trigger a situation where they would override that status quo for the people affected and could discriminate against them. Therefore, it would be important to have the amendment that we are proposing.11:50:003098Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation are very poorly funded in the public sector and access is very poor. These are areas of great importance and continuing importance to a lot of people. If we are going to be regarded as a caring society, we need to make sure that more resources are put into psychiatric and palliative care and rehabilitation. I have considered the parliamentary secretary's statements and he is right that this will go beyond the status quo. Originally I was not of that intention, but I think: why not go beyond the status quo in respect of these matters so that we do not have the situation where, as indicated by Senator Margetts, something was not diagnosed? Clearly, in some of these areas, we do have problems in that regard.What I cannot understand is how the parliamentary secretary can say that some of these people will be discriminated against by what I am proposing. How is that? I certainly cannot see it, on the face of it, otherwise I would not have moved the amendments. The amendments, I would have thought, were fairly clear. As indicated by Senator Evans, it does go to the question of waiting periods. In some circumstances, the effect of the waiting periods on sufferers requiring this type of care is quite dramatic. I ask the parliamentary secretary directly what he meant when he suggested to the chamber that my amendments, unamended by what the government is proposing, will in some way discriminate against or disadvantage the people we are hoping to advance by these amendments.11:54:003098Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Senator Harradine is focusing very clearly on the group which he has identified as having particular and special needs. This also needs to be considered in the context of other members of the funds and the effects the proposal would have on them, particularly with regard to the consequential flow-on that would necessarily have to be borne by the fund generally as well as the particular members of the fund. The fact that increased premiums for insurance would be inevitable, and could be substantial, does need to tax our attention very carefully. There is the debate between the issue of the pre-existing ailment and how that affects the other members of the fund and their conditions and also the effect that Senator Harradine's amendments, unamended, would have on the economic impact of all members of funds. It would have the effect of increasing premiums very substantially.11:55:003098Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—That says something, doesn't it, about the way we look at psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation. It is clear to me, and I think to everybody, that those areas of care are poorly funded. I must have misunderstood the parliamentary secretary. I thought he said that in some way these people would be discriminated against. They will not be, other than what the parliamentary secretary said about the general effect of such an amendment on premiums.I have heard these things bandied about over the years in a number of areas. They say, `Oh, there'll be discrimination; there'll be disadvantage,' et cetera. We have just heard a broad statement by the parliamentary secretary that the amendment would require a substantial increase in fees. Where are the facts on that? Where are the facts on the care of people with psychiatric problems? Where are the facts on the costs of palliative care and rehabilitation? Have those been considered, as against the importance of attending to these problems in a timely fashion? As I indicated earlier, more and more people are needing palliative care and rehabilitation and, unfortunately, more people are needing psychiatric care.I am quite deliberate in what I am proposing. I heard what Senator Evans said. Obviously it is a matter which he will have to consider further, as will the Democrats and Senator Margetts. Frankly, I can say that my amendments go slightly beyond the status quo, but I would not have moved the amendments had I not been concerned about the wording of the schedule, which seemed to me to give an opening to the funds. I do not think we should give them a break on this.11:59:003099Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting Senator Harradine's original amendments. I have trouble with what the government is trying to do. We will be supporting Senator Harradine.11:59:003099Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—We have taken note of the comments that have been raised and we have drawn on the comments that Senator Evans made in that regard. I have not formally moved or foreshadowed an amendment because of the way in which Senator Harradine introduced his amendments. I would like to set to one side what I have previously foreshadowed. I believe we would be able to have a better form of words if I were to add, by way of amendment to Senator Harradine's amendments, the words `subject to the pre-existing ailment rule in paragraph (kc),'. I believe that is more specific and acceptable. It recognises that this important matter does impinge on the important operations of the funds yet at the same time achieves the objectives of the groups for which Senator Harradine is rightly seeking to get special assistance. I therefore move:At the end of paragraph (ja), add "subject to the pre-existing ailment rule in paragraph (kc)".NaN:00:003099Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not think anything necessarily has occurred to change my position. My inclination is still to support Senator Harradine's amendment. I think that if there is a serious argument about an unintended consequence which the government wants to make, then perhaps Senator Harradine might agree to defer this to a later hour because we seem to be going around in circles without clarifying it. We would be concerned if there was an unintended consequence, but at the moment, if it comes to a vote, I think I would just vote for Senator Harradine's amendment.I am not convinced by the government, but I understand that this has been legitimately put by the government. I do not know what Senator Harradine's view is, but it might be easier to adjourn this particular debate to a later hour and be clear what it is we are voting on. In the absence of that, I would be inclined to stick with my original position. I always take the view in these cases that the parliament ought not act in ignorance and, if there is a legitimate case that we might be creating a unintended consequence, then perhaps drawing back and thinking about that might be a worth while thing to do.My instructions are, and my inclination is, just to support Senator Harradine's amendment at the moment. But, in terms of efficient legislation and proper functioning of the Senate, it might be useful to step back to make sure we understand what we are doing on this particular clause, deal with the rest of the bill and either deal with that at the end or come back later today or tomorrow to nut out this particular issue. At this stage, if we are pressing on I will be voting for Senator Harradine's amendment. I am still not clear what the government's case is.12:02:003099Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am surprised that the Labor Party has not responded to that particular amendment that I put forward which I thought would have been acceptable. It is important to note that the intent of the amendment is to preserve the status quo.Senator Harradine's amendment, as it is currently circulated in his name, will have the effect of increasing premiums and health contributions in this area. I think it is important to note that, if Senator Chris Evans, Senator Lees and Senator Harradine are of a mind to proceed in that area, they will be forcing up health insurance premiums.12:03:003099Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I would have thought Senator Chris Evans's suggestion was a responsible response to the government's amendment to my amendment. I do not know what our colleagues around the chamber feel. My feeling, subject to what they might say, is to seek leave to have the clause deferred until a later hour of this day. But I would hope that the government has got a bit more to say about the matter than it has thus far. This threat of higher premiums et cetera can be pulled out of the hat at any time of the day just to frighten people off. I think there has been too much of that in this whole insurance industry debate. The insurance industry has a very substantial influence on health policy in this country; one might tend to say that it has got too much of an influence on the health policy of this country. Depending on what the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens might say, I would be happy to suggest its deferral. But, as I say, the government will need to come back with some solid figures.UNKNOWNThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Could you move that way, Senator Harradine?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I move:That further consideration of the amendments be postponed.12:05:003100Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate that I am inclined to support Senator Harradine's motion. I briefly was inclined not to press ahead after Senator Tambling's outburst. Those of us trying to bring a conciliatory approach to this issue to assist the government get out of the tangle it has got into feel that, if Senator Tambling wants to start issuing threats across the chamber, then he is going to end up with a very messy bill. I think he ought to take a look at himself before he starts that sort of behaviour. We are trying to assist the government. We currently are dealing with two handwritten notes from the government.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—This is a deferral motion. Therefore, there is no debate, Senator.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Sorry.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Senator Harradine's motion to defer this matter be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now move to opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4.12:06:003100Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4:(3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (line 9), omit "The Minister", substitute "Subject to subsection (4A), the Minister".(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection (4), insert:(4A) Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to be subject to accreditation and quality assurance procedures that are at least equivalent to the minimum accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to a day hospital facility or day procedure centre under State or Territory laws.Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4 effectively seek to establish a regime for minimum standards for office based surgery. A major element of this bill is to make provision for office based surgery and to provide for the funding arrangements for those procedures.These amendments seek to ensure that the proposed approved facilities are required to meet at least the level of accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to day surgeries under state or territory law. This is intended to avoid the prospect that approved facilities could operate in a substandard fashion or enjoy an unfair economic advantage over day surgeries through neglect of standards which potentially could impact on patient safety.The wording only requires that the minister include in the proposed guidelines a provision that the minimum standards for accreditation and quality assurance are not reduced. We are in fact setting the benchmark. There is no legal obligation on the minister if the state fails to enforce such standards, and it is not even required that every state has written standards in place, provided that the level of control over new approved facilities is not less than what applies to day surgeries. This ensures the government's favourite position of a level playing field and also ensures that new facilities do not enjoy an artificial commercial advantage over existing hospitals and day surgeries simply because they do not have to achieve the same levels of cleanliness and peer group oversight. There are, I think, very good reasons, from a point of view of both competition and patient safety, why we ought to have a benchmark for these approved facilities in terms of the quality to be maintained in them.I note that Senator Harradine also has amendments in this regard, and I also note that there is some suggestion on the running sheet that our amendments conflict with Senator Harradine's. I put the case that there is nothing contradictory in the two approaches. I think they go to the same concern. I am not sure what Senator Harradine's attitude is to our amendments, but essentially we have a view that we are going to vote for ours and for his, because it seems to me that our amendment seeks to set the minimum benchmark, which is that the standards be the same at the very least as those for the day surgeries, and that is an important platform to erect under the new arrangements for approved facilities.As I understand Senator Harradine's amendments, they go to the question of quality protocols. We talk about quality assurance procedures and he talks about quality protocols, and it is a perfectly appropriate thing. He talks about annual utilisation reviews to be conducted by the Commonwealth. Again, we have no problem with that, although there is the question about whether the Commonwealth intends moving into that sort of role. As I understand it, it is traditionally a sort of inspection role done by the state system.Anyway, I think our amendments and Senator Harradine's go to the same issue of ensuring that we have a minimum quality established, that public safety is ensured and that existing day surgeries do not face unfair competition as a result of our not ensuring that appropriate standards are met. So I would urge the Senate to support our amendments, but I just wanted to draw senators' attention to the fact that the note on the running sheet implies they are contradictory with Senator Harradine's amendments. I am not sure that they are, but other people may have other views.12:11:003101Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Firstly, we will be supporting these amend ments. I think they are very important. I do not think anyone can argue against quality assurance procedures, and I do agree with Senator Evans that Senator Harradine's amendments are not in conflict. In Senator Harradine's amendments, clause (4A)(a) talks about the establishment of quality protocols. Senator Evans's amendments say that these protocols should be in line with what is currently applicable for day hospital facilities or day procedure centres under state or territory laws. So they are actually agreeing with Senator Harradine's clause (4A)(a) and taking it a step further by giving some details.I ask the minister: I know we are not onto Senator Harradine's amendments yet, but I think we should be looking at both sets of amendments. With regard to annual utilisation reviews, is that a fairly simple process of simply looking at Medicare provider numbers as related to a particular facility? I understand that is something quite simple and the department should not have any problem with it.12:12:003101Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the comments that Senator Evans has made, drawing attention to the overlap in the amendments proposed by the opposition and those proposed by Senator Harradine. The government is more inclined to support the amendments from Senator Harradine, as we believe that they more succinctly and correctly address the issues. The implementation phase of this bill has always envisaged wide consultation to ensure quality health and safety outcomes.The Department of Health and Aged Care is currently undertaking discussions with state and territory governments on licensing issues, and the department has already had discussions with the Australian Day Surgery Council, who have agreed to assist the department in developing quality standards for approved procedures facilities. The government has been talking to Senator Harradine's office in this regard, and we think that, to address the issues just raised by Senator Lees, it will probably be more appropriate if we amend Senator Harradine's proposed amendment with suggested additional wording. I will propose at a later stage that we add a clause (4A) reading:Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to—(a) comply with the relevant quality protocols; and(b) provide annual utilisation data requested by the Commonwealth.If that addition to Senator Harradine's amendments were agreeable to him, we would certainly be inclined to support them.12:14:003102Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am getting a bit worried if the department of health is agreeing with an amendment that I am putting. I was about to rise after Senator Evans and indicate to him that I actually feel that the wording of the Labor Party's amendment is more direct and acceptable. As Senator Lees mentions, it is specific; it points to state legislation. As such I think it is far tighter than my amendment, which of course is trying to do pretty much the same thing.8U4LEESSenator Lees—It still needs paragraph (b).6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, thank you, Senator Lees. I cannot but agree with what Senator Lees says. We do need paragraph (b) of mine, because I really do not think the opposition's amendment goes far enough to satisfy proper scrutiny of the effect and benefit of those changes. My amendment seeks to do that. It requires that an annual utilisation review be conducted by the Commonwealth. As Senator Lees says, when that was drafted, it certainly did not appear to us to be overly onerous. It is an annual utilisation review. It means better transparency. If it is acceptable to Senator Evans, I will defer to his amendment, and suggest and request that he include my paragraph (b) in his current amendment. It simply says:. . . annual utilisation reviews to be conducted by the Commonwealth.I do not know how he or Senator Lees or Senator Margetts feels about that.12:17:003102Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate—as I indicated earlier—that I have no difficulty with Senator Harradine's amendments. I think there was a question of duplication and that having the two together might have left a bit of muddled thinking. So I think what he proposed is probably a better total outcome. If that is the general view in the Senate, we would be pleased to add to our amendment (4) the sentence about annual utilisation reviews being conducted by the Commonwealth that was included in Senator Harradine's amendments. That probably makes the most cohesive outcome of the joint intent, provided that is acceptable to the chamber. I take your guidance as to how we do that procedurally. I thank Senator Harradine for his contribution and take your guidance, Mr Temporary Chairman. If I need to do that by moving it as an amendment to my amendment, I will do so. I seek leave to include that sentence as an addition to our amendment (4).Leave granted.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I therefore move amendment (4), as amended:(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (after line 10), after subsection (4), insert:(4A) Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to be subject to accreditation and quality assurance procedures that: (a) are at least equivalent to the minimum accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to a day hospital facility or day procedure centre under State or Territory laws; and (b) include annual utilisation reviews to be conducted by the Commonwealth.12:19:003102Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—There are a number of issues on this clause that I think may need to be deferred and addressed, because the matter could get further complicated by the particular issues of where we are cutting and pasting here between the various areas. For example, in the amendments proposed by the Labor Party, under (4A) there is the statement:. . . to the minimum accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to a day hospital facility or day procedure centre under State or Territory laws. There is, as we know, a considerable degree of inconsistency at the moment between state and territory laws. This could therefore further exacerbate the problem. We are keen to get a consistency and a uniformity in this area that I think the amendments being proposed in this regard by the opposition will further complicate. Similarly, I know that Senator Evans just picked up a suggested phrase from Senator Harradine to add to the Labor Party's proposed clause (4A). I would propose that the words I had indicated earlier would be more appropriately added to Senator Harradine's more acceptable amendment to us, which added the words:Guidelines made under section (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to(a) comply with relevant quality protocols, and(b) provide annual utilisation data requested by the Commonwealth.We would maintain that that would be more appropriately added to the opposition amendment than the words picked up by taking and borrowing from Senator Harradine's amendment.I also pose the question to Senator Harradine as to whether, subject to the outcome of the opposition amendments, he would be intending to continue with the amendments he had previously placed before us or whether he is intending to withdraw them. I think it is important to know.12:22:003103Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Is Senator Tambling suggesting that the accreditation and quality control procedures in some states, in their day hospital facilities or their day procedure facilities, are not adequate? If that is the case, surely that is an issue that the minister should be actively dealing with at the moment. With due respect to Senator Harradine—and I do not want to suggest, in any way, that when he drew up the amendment he even thought of it—if we just leave a general quality protocol out there, we could end up with the lowest common denominator.I think we have to have some faith in what the state and territories are doing and slot this new facility option in. If we then have questions, we should take it very seriously, because it would obviously mean that their day surgery facilities are not up to standard and that their procedure facilities generally need to be checked and, if necessary, standardised across the country.I have major problems with us simply moving an amendment here today that just talks about quality protocols, with no ability for us to say what they are, whether they are the lowest or indeed the best. I think it is too vague for us to let through this place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Senator Lees, I think at this stage we have the situation where Senator Harradine thinks that the opposition's amendments are better than his, but the government thinks that Senator Harradine's are better than theirs. Perhaps we should take a bit of one and a bit of the other and mix it all up and make it something else. I do not know where we are at the moment. We seem to have all of these different changes coming. Perhaps you might be able to help us.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I understood that we are now debating Senator Evans's composite amendment. The composition is that Senator Evans's amendment is effectively part (a), which actually gives us some specifics as to what this quality control is. Part (b) has been lifted from Senator Harradine's amendment and that talks about the reviews conducted by the Commonwealth. How the Commonwealth wants to conduct these, I do not know. It may be that they are going to require some input; it may be that they attach a Medicare tag on these procedures so that they can simply read it off their statistics. How the Commonwealth gets this information is surely over to them, but I think it is important that today we ask that those utilisation reviews be the responsibility of the Commonwealth.12:25:003103Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to indicate that I support handling the issue in the way that has been suggested by Senator Evans—that is, we deal with an amended Labor amendment. I also indicate that I share the concerns that have been expressed that, with any of the states that have gone to the trouble of getting a higher standard of day surgery, the people in those states may be singled out for poorer treatment than they currently have, and that they may be under pressure to accept poorer standards than exist, if we go along with Senator Tambling's rather odd suggestion that somehow we cannot suggest that the standards that exist in the states and territories are the ones that ought to be complied with. What the minister has said makes no real sense in terms of patient care. I am prepared to accept the approach taken by Senator Evans. I certainly accept the amendment, as amended by Senator Harradine's amendment.12:26:003104Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—It is clear to me, and I would think it is clear to the whole of the Senate, that the proposition that has been put forward by Senator Evans really improves the position. My amendment about the establishment of quality protocols says:Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to be subject to accreditation procedures that include:(a) the establishment of quality protocols;Senator Evans's proposal is:Guidelines made under subsection (4) must include a requirement for an approved procedures facility to be subject to accreditation and quality assurance procedures that are at least equivalent to the minimum accreditation and quality assurance procedures that apply to a day hospital facility or day procedure centre under State or Territory laws.That is clearly more specific. When we are making laws, as we are in this particular case, the clearer they are, and the more specific they are, the better. On the second point, and I am pleased that Senator Evans picked this up, we are talking about health insurance. One of the aspects and factors influencing the price of health insurance is the degree of utilisation in particular procedures.I have had representations to my office, and no doubt other honourable senators have, from people who are concerned that there may be a degree of overservicing and that there are a large number of unnecessary tests or procedures. Therefore, in my view, it is essential that the Commonwealth conduct utilisation reviews to ensure that best practice medicine, or better understood as evidence based medicine, is conducted through health insurance. That is the reason for the amendment I suggested.The parliamentary secretary, Senator Tambling, has suggested that there be certain guidelines under section 4. I am not sure of the sorts of guidelines that he has in mind. Would they be guidelines to qualify that the annual utilisation reviews be conducted by the Commonwealth? What are the guidelines that will be used? I would be interested to hear from Senator Tambling about this. When these are clear and before us, they may be more specific and better for the legislature to adopt.12:28:003104Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Commonwealth is keen to insist on, and to obtain, high consistent standards. At the same time, we recognise the important role and function of the state and territory laws in this regard, and what is correctly their prerogative in dealing with that area. In order to achieve high consistent standards, with appropriate accountability mechanisms, it would of course be one of the issues that would subsequently be addressed through regulation.The debate here of course is one largely of how we achieve this. Senator Harradine did not indicate whether, if we proceed with Senator Evans's amendments, he would be forgoing his subsequent amendment or whether we are going to revisit the debate.Senator Harradine interjecting—6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—Okay, I accept that. I believe that it is an issue and accept that there will be a will of the Senate in this regard.12:30:003104Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I do not wish to delay the Senate; I think it is important that we move on. I wanted to reiterate the point made eloquently by Senator Harradine that the opposition's amendment refers to `at least equivalent' and is about the government drawing up regulations. It seems to me that the government has the capacity to draw up those regulations in a way that meets the intention clearly expressed by the Senate if this is carried. I do not see that there is a problem. The guidelines will need to ensure that those accreditation and quality assurance procedures are at least equivalent. The stand ards and the methods are left to the terms of the regulation, which will be drafted by government.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—The question is that amendment No. 4 as amended and amendment No. 3 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment No. 5 and opposition amendment No. 1, sheet 1280.12:31:003105Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I think we might take them separately, Madam Temporary Chair. I was not aware that we were going to take them together. It was my intention just to move Labor amendment No. 5 at this stage.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes, they can be taken separately.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—The substance of the amendment to be moved by the opposition seeks to omit a paragraph and substitute the words:that it is a procedure that, before the commencement of this subsection, was performed exclusively in a hospital or day hospital and involved an episode of hospital treatment.The reason for doing that is to clarify that the procedures that can be carried out in approved facilities are limited to ones relocated from a hospital or day surgery. I think the government was arguing that that was in fact the case in their bill, but the opposition is concerned that the wording of the bill at present would allow procedures which are done in a doctor's surgery to now be done in an approved facility and to attract the facility's fee, provided that the procedure could also be done in a hospital. For a public patient, this would mean that they would get only 75 per cent of the schedule fee rather than the 85 per cent they would get now.The transfer of procedures from a doctor's surgery to an approved facility would also increase the total cost of providing health and would cancel out the savings from relocating procedures from hospitals. This would therefore wipe out the economic justification the government has made for this bill, which is based on procedures being carried out at the venue that is most appropriate and that comes at the least cost to the government and to the consumer of the service.The government indicated to us earlier that this amendment was unnecessary and that they had some problems with the use of the word `exclusively'. I am not sure what the government will be doing. Obviously we will hear from Senator Tambling. All I want to indicate is that the opposition is willing to participate in getting the best possible wording to achieve the intention of our amendment.Clearly what we want to see ensured is that this is not a recipe for increasing costs either to the health system or to the patients, and that these approved facilities provide alternatives to procedures that are carried out in hospitals or day surgeries now rather than move the other way. The argument is quite clear. I am not sure that we are in any disagreement with the government about the policy outcome, so I would move our amendment with that argument and perhaps see what other senators had to say.12:34:003105Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The government would not object to the substance of this amendment. However, I would like to suggest a modification to the amendment so that it would read:(a) that this is a procedure that, before the commencement of this subsection, is usually (not exclusively) performed in a hospital or day hospital facility and involved an episode of hospital treatment; butTechnological advances are such that a number of procedures that might still be carried out in hospital or day hospital facilities could, in the very near future, be safely undertaken elsewhere. If Senator Chris Evans was prepared to agree to those words, I could indicate the government would support the amendment.12:35:003105Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I understand what Senator Tambling is doing and I agree that technology is racing ahead, probably ahead of most of us, but my problem is that we are reducing from 85 per cent to 75 per cent the actual Medicare rebate that people can claim back. That is no problem for those people who are privately insured, but for public patients it is going to be a very different issue.In the past public patients who went along to a doctor's surgery—perhaps they had some major package of stitching or something that could just as easily have been done in casualty but they did not go to casualty because their local 24-hour clinic had all the facilities to do it there—would get 85 per cent back. But we have a situation now where the public patients are going to suffer. Presumably these new facilities are going to be established in some of the clinics. Perhaps they are going to be established in nursing homes. We have not had any indication from the government as to exactly where they see these new facilities being established.If the opposition's last amendment had got up—the one relating to taking it back up to 85 per cent and looking after public patients—then I would be happy with what the government was doing. But at the moment my concern is that we are again leaving behind the public patients and only looking at people with private health insurance. I do not think we should continue down this road, with all the advantages going to those who are privately insured when the people who want to look after themselves are left behind.12:36:003106Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As it presently stands, the uninsured—that is, the public patient—has to pay all the costs when they have a procedure in a private hospital. The government covers their medical costs of up to 75 per cent of the medical benefits schedule.This bill attempts to maintain the 75 per cent coverage for public patients receiving procedures out of the hospital that they normally receive in the hospital. This is in contrast to the normal situation where, when they are attending a medical practitioner, they are reimbursed 85 per cent of the MBS for medical costs. To raise the MBS to 85 per cent will only encourage state governments to push some hospital procedures into approved facilities so that the Commonwealth pays rather than the state.I raise this issue preparatory to asking a question of the parliamentary secretary because, as we all know, this is a difficult and complex issue of health financing and it is unclear whether public patients will necessarily face higher out-of-pocket expenses through these changes. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary what the government's response is on this particular issue. It seems to me that raising the MBS to 85 per cent only further increases Commonwealth expenditure on private health services without necessarily adding any substantial funding to public services. I would be concerned that leaving the MBS at 75 per cent may set a precedent for other areas of out-of-hospital care to be reduced to 75 per cent from 85 per cent.Consequently, can the government assure us that the 75 per cent rebate will only apply to certain procedures and that the Commonwealth will guarantee that it will not apply more broadly in the future? I would like to hear the government's response to what I have just said.12:39:003106Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the comments that have been made by Senator Harradine. They probably impinge more directly on the next amendment that we will be addressing in committee as opposed to Senator Evans's amendment that is currently before us. We will certainly go into the detail of that on that next amendment. However, I indicate that where a facility is essentially the same, the procedure is the same: the benefits will not alter and will be the same.12:40:003106Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to `fess up' to the committee and indicate that I might have misled them on the basis that I was working off the opposition's first draft amendments and not the revised amendments. When Senator Tambling proposed to amend our amendments it became clear to me. Perhaps the first question to ask is whether people have a list of revised opposition amendments before them or the original list. I have a document titled, `Opposition amendments revised'. Is that before the—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Yes. Senators should have revised copy 1279.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—As I indicated in speaking to Labor amendment No. 5, there had been some discussion with the government because the government had indicated, basically, acceptance of the policy direction but had raised concerns about the question of exclusivity that was contained in our original amendment. Only after I spoke to our amendment did I realise that I was operating from the old amendments as well. So I thought it important to clarify where we were at.I am not sure that Senator Tambling formally moved his amendment but, for the record, I think it is important that I now move revised opposition amendment No. 5. I move:(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 13 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (a), substitute:(a) that it is a procedure that, before the commencement of this subsection, was performed usually in a hospital or day hospital and involved an episode of hospital treatment; butWe have made an attempt to meet the government some way in reaching a compromise on that provision.I must admit, after I heard Senator Tambling, I thought I preferred his, but so as to not confuse the chamber any further I intend proceeding with our revised amendment. I do not want to stifle a debate which can move on to other things. I thought we needed to be clear what we were considering. The opposition has moved the revised amendment which includes the word `usually'.I take Senator Lees's point, too. I actually dealt with the amendments separately, but I think Senator Lees made a valid point when she said that her attitude to this was based upon the attitude to the second issue which Senator Harradine also raised. I suppose for the purposes of the debate we could make those points now and then vote separately. I thought it important to clarify the record.12:43:003107Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is regrettable I did not have in front of me the revised sheet, and for that I am sorry because in that case it would not have been necessary for me to have foreshadowed the amendment I was proposing, which I do not think I moved, so that can lie on the table. We support Senator Evans's amendment.12:43:003107Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens were certainly prepared to support the amendment to protect against the penalising of people through going from 85 per cent coverage to a 75 per cent Medicare rebate. We had some problems with the use of exclusivity, so we are glad this has been sorted out. We are certainly prepared to support the amendment as amended.12:44:003107Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I also apologise for speaking to the wrong amendment. I support the amendment before the chamber now.Amendment agreed to.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest310710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to order, I call on matters of public interest.310712:45:003107Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I have spoken twice in the Senate recently about an issue of immense concern to me. On 17 February I rose to inform the Senate of a meeting that I convened in my home town at the Newcastle Workers Club. It was an appropriate venue for a meeting about drugs. People will remember the great tragedy suffered by Newcastle during an earthquake a decade ago. This time, the tragedy is not so much a natural disaster but more a human disaster. The meeting was about the drug scourge that has been tearing apart my home town of Newcastle and, in fact, the whole of New South Wales.The Workers Club is home to the office of Bryce Gaudry, state Labor member for the electorate of Newcastle for the past 11 years. He did condescend to attend, at the 11th hour, the drug crisis meeting, not realising the depth of the drug problem in his home town. Nor did he realise the depth of the drug problem in his own state. That was to be expected, given the Carr government's failure in every aspect of dealing with the drug crisis in New South Wales.New South Wales is the crime capital of Australia. New South Wales is the drug capital of Australia. The public has been kept in the dark with regard to the problem, thanks largely to the Carr government's inconsistent, ambiguous policy. It is a do-nothing policy, akin to their do-nothing election campaign.Everywhere, we are reminded of the ineptness of the Carr government's approach, which has left dealers to prosper and develop in hot spots like Kings Cross and Cabramatta. Now, half of the nation's heroin overdoses occur in New South Wales. The figure of 600 deaths per annum is a 13 per cent increase on last year and a 73 per cent increase since 1989.Bob Carr and his ALP government close their eyes, and in the meantime the purity of street heroin has risen threefold since he came to power. An addict dies every 16 hours in Australia. Twenty years ago, the figure was one every five days.The Carr ALP government has, for two years in a row, cut funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation. That is an absolute disgrace. According to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, it is the worst performing state in this regard. The cost of drug and alcohol programs to taxpayers in New South Wales in 1996-97 was $6.60 per head of population. In the previous year, it was $7.06.What New South Wales addicts and their families need is a bipartisan approach to investigate the crisis and formulate policies and legislation. We have no chance of this under the Carr ALP government, which has refused steadfastly to have a bipartisan inquiry before the election. They say they will do it after the election. But they have been in power for four years. We are only now starting to hear of measures that appear to be serious about starting a war on drugs. Why now? Why not four years ago?I remind members of the Senate and the general public of the disturbing crime statistics raised by the Hon. Amanda Vanstone in question time yesterday. In the time that assaults have risen by 2.8 per cent in Victoria, the figure has risen by 44 per cent in New South Wales. The armed robbery rate per 100,000 of the population in New South Wales is 79.3, which is three times the Victorian figure. Under the ALP Carr government, the rate of armed robbery has risen by 105 per cent in five years, compared to 15 per cent in Victoria over the same period.The unarmed robbery rate per 100,000 of the population is 121 in New South Wales, which is more than four times that of Victoria. Under the Labor government in New South Wales, this rate has risen by 97 per cent, compared to 35 per cent in Victoria over the same period. Those figures are a damning indictment of the Carr government and their record on the prevention and treatment of drug abuse.Let us look at what they have done in New South Wales. There is an acknowledged link between crime and drug use. There is also a link between unemployment and drug use, but thanks to this federal coalition government, the unemployment rate in New South Wales is now under 6½ per cent.Let us consider the Carr government's record on drugs, based on figures from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Report on illicit drugs for 1997-98. In 1997-98, the Victorian police force arrested 1,900 heroin dealers, while the New South Wales police force arrested 685. In real terms, New South Wales police made one-third as many arrests for heroin dealing. This is particularly appalling when it is considered that New South Wales accounts for 62 per cent of heroin seizures by Customs, nearly half the national death toll for drug overdoses, and has nearly half the nation's drug addicts.Premier Carr's flawed and failing policy is not attacking the drug menace at the supply level, which would make economic, social and common sense. Instead, he is leaving the dealers to infiltrate the streets and focusing on the users, who are the victims, the weakest link in the deadly drug chain.This is a view shared by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. New South Wales has the lowest rate of finalised investigations for armed robbery of any state in Australia. Eighty-seven per cent of armed robbery investigations are not finalised after three months. New South Wales proceeds against only 10 per cent of offenders in unarmed robbery investigations, compared to 26 per cent in Victoria. If you are a criminal in New South Wales, you have a 90 per cent chance of not being taken to court.An effective drug policy would see the average age of regular users of drugs rising. The younger generation would not be taking up drugs and policy attention could be focused on the older, hard-core, life users. In New South Wales, the average age of users is 27 and falling rapidly. In Sweden, the average age of users is in their late 30s. Sweden is recognised as having the toughest drug policy in the world. Premier Carr has come to government and ignored the Swedish experience, preferring instead to let the muck run free in hot spots like Kings Cross and Cabramatta.The Swedish experience makes interesting reading for anyone who has a compassionate interest in drug policy. Obviously Premier Carr and his policy `makers', so to speak, have not done very much research on what is effective in terms of drug policy. In the meantime, the number of heroin related deaths has risen by 50 per cent in NSW. The Swedish government experimented with a similar policy in 1965 to 1967 when they adopted `harm reduction'. But unlike here, they moved away from that fairly quickly because they found that it was a complete disaster. In providing regular drug users with narcotics, the government unconsciously installed and supplied a new black market. Instead of waiting for change, as Carr and his cohorts have done, they realised the need for intervention and conducted an inquiry into the drug problems in Sweden.With swallowed pride and apologetic regret, the Swedish government took a prohibition approach. Police were granted wider powers to stop, search and detain suspected users of cannabis, heroin and amphetamines. Obligatory urine tests were conducted at police stations and hefty fines were introduced, payable on a PAYE system. By the late 1970s, the government realised that their approach targets, as does the NSW system, the victims more than the dealers. So they changed their approach. Residential treatment centres were increased, outpatient units established and information campaigns introduced. I mentioned in my earlier speech the terrible lack in New South Wales of treatment centres. If there is anywhere the state government should be directing its resources it is to get rid of the disgraceful situation where the units available in most centres are very small or, as I mentioned last time, on the Central Coast nonexistent.Police in Sweden took a tougher stance on street trading to prevent the wedging in of heroin. Their new focus was on all forms and sizes of trafficking. The number of arrests tripled in the early 1980s as the Swedish government and a willing general public worked together to become a drug free society. The public meeting in Newcastle is the start of that sort of cooperation. Let us hope it spreads to other cities.The guiding principle of the Swedish drug free society was to show distinctly and unambiguously that all non-medical use of drugs is unacceptable. Methadone maintenance and needle exchanges in Sweden are restrictive and cautionary. As part of what became known as the `caring chain', medical facilities such as methadone clinics were aided by social welfare counselling and a caring base that was the government's social services infrastructure. In Sweden, the interlinked caring chain ensures that 100 per cent of users get into non-government treatment centres within a matter of weeks. In NSW, the figure is 28 per cent. Now the caring base of Sweden is looking into new drug treatments that seem to work. At present, the Swedish government spends $220 million directly on drug treatment and rehabilitation. This is, in real terms, nearly triple the figure spent in NSW under the Carr government.In the meantime in New South Wales, social indicators of harm remain consistently high. Assaults, rapes and domestic violence are on the rise. Welfare departments are becoming backlogged and social security payments are increasing. The victims of Premier Carr's penny pinching are not just the users themselves, but any member of the public who has their home broken into, is accosted walking down the street or feels unsafe in the streets. There is sadly no caring base in NSW at present. The Carr government's policy reeks of duality. Methadone centres are closed down ad hoc. Needle exchanges are created ad hoc without caring and support and then closed down ad hoc. Shooting galleries are left to conduct their business ad hoc and then shut up again, ad hoc.Twenty years ago, Sweden had one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Now New South Wales has one of the highest in the world. It raises the question: where would you rather raise your kids—Stockholm or Sydney?311012:57:003110O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, seemed genuinely upset that Dick Smith was being forced out as chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority last Monday. In response to a question from the member for Dickson about Mr Smith's future, the Prime Minister said that he retained a tremendous amount of confidence in and had a personal regard for Mr Smith. However, Mr Smith lost the confidence of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and his fellow CASA board members and had no choice but to resign. A possible explanation for the Prime Minister's distress may be that Dick Smith's style of doing business very much appeals to the Prime Minister. No-one would deny that Dick Smith brings enormous energy to everything he does. He is a reformer. Dick wrote to me some time ago wanting a meeting to seek my views on aviation policy. That meeting lasted over two hours and I recall getting a couple of words in but I cannot recall exactly what they were.While the Prime Minister clearly admires Dick's style, Mr Howard is in no way a fellow traveller. In fact, his own style is probably the antithesis of Mr Smith's. He is a procrastinator, he is inflexible and, unlike Mr Smith, no-one would ever accuse the Prime Minister of being a doer or an aggressive reformer.Monday saw the end to Dick Smith's second term as the head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. One of the reasons for Mr Smith's departure—the failed class G airspace trials—is to be the subject of a Senate inquiry. While I do not want to preempt that process, I would still like to make some observations about Mr Smith's time as chair of CASA.Dick Smith failed again as chairman of the now Civil Aviation Safety Authority not because of his desire to reform but the manner in which he pursued that reform. There was no room in the Smith regime for proper process—that is the problem. There was also little room for effective consultation with his customers. The result was a flawed reform process lacking attention to detail and industry support. When you are dealing with aviation matters these flaws can literally prove fatal. Despite what happened over last weekend, Mr Smith claimed on ABC AM yesterday that he enjoyed the full support of the CASA board. He said all his fellow board members pressed him to stay. Unfortunately, this claim does not fit with the facts.The deteriorating relationship between Chairman Smith and Chief Executive Toller reached a climax when Mick Toller cancelled the class G airspace trial. Minister Anderson called a special meeting of the CASA board to resolve what had become a Mexican stand-off between the chair and the director. The board obviously backed Mr Toller. If the board were backing Mr Smith, he would still be there or the board would have resigned en masse. I note that one board member, Ms Shepherd, has resigned in support of Mr Smith. I go back to Mr Smith's comments last Sunday. In that same interview Mr Smith claimed that radar had been shut down because of a union demarcation dispute. In today's Australian Airservices Australia said this claim was simply wrong. A spokesman said there was no dispute and the radar had not been switched off.The events of the weekend almost mirror the situation that developed with Dick Smith and the former Chief Executive of CASA, Leroy Keith, in 1997. On that occasion Smith had the numbers on the board, courtesy of his friend, former minister John Sharp, and Leroy Keith was forced out. In that case Australian aviation lost an aviation administrator with a very high international reputation and kept Dick Smith. On this occasion we get to keep our top-flight aviation administrator and lose Dick.I should say that Dick Smith's relationship with his board and his chief executive is best illustrated by a letter he wrote to his colleague, Airservices Chair John Forsyth, in January this year. That letter was dated 3 January and was hand delivered to Mr Forsyth on that day. The letter concerned the upgrading of class G to class E airspace north of Brisbane. In that letter Mr Smith told Mr Forsyth:I asked Mick Toller to prepare this advice, however, Mick has since told me that he wishes to wait until Bill Pollard—the Director of Airservices—returns so he can discuss the issue with Bill before putting the CASA position in writing.Not only was there this clash with Mr Toller but also Mr Smith did not have board clearance to pursue the matter. He said he would obtain urgent confirmation from his board `when I can get all the members together'. He said in the same letter:But I advise you not to delay any decision making as our Board is single minded about the urgency for safety improvement through airspace reform.Mick Toller quite reasonably wanted to discuss the matter with Bill Pollard, so Dick Smith chose to simply bypass him. The CASA board had clearly not considered and endorsed the proposal, but Dick planned to get what amounted to a backdated board decision. This is no way to do business when you are responsible for the administration of aviation safety in Australia. Claims by the former minister, Mr Sharp, that an effective CASA board required a high level of aviation expertise and experience obviously did not suit Dick Smith. It appears he saw the CASA board as a rubber stamp and little more. I look forward to Mr Smith's evidence on this point in the Senate inquiry.Mr Smith also failed to gather industry support for his reform agenda. In fact, rather than bring airspace users along with him, he openly antagonised them. Let us take, for example, the Royal Australian Air Force. You would have to say it is a conservative organisation not known to openly buck the system, and it is an organisation that brings considerable expertise and experience to the process of upgrading aviation regulations. On this matter of class G airspace, the RAAF opposed the trial. It was concerned about safety. But when Mr Smith was asked about RAAF opposition to his class G demonstration on the ABC 7.30 Report on 8 February, he said that the airlines had pressured the RAAF. He claimed that Ansett and Qantas had run to the military and said, `We oppose this trial. Why don't you come on board?' and that they did. He was asked for proof of this allegation and he replied:Well, the proof I have is that the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, a most knowledgeable skilled pilot, sat at every meeting, a program implementation group, giving Mick Toller every support every bit of the way.Frankly, that claim was simply wrong. The officer Mr Smith referred to was Air Vice-Marshal Espeland. Air Vice-Marshal Espeland told a Senate estimates hearing that Defence, far from supporting this trial, had raised five safety concerns about the trial. They related to traffic information, cockpit workload, frequency management and the education of airspace users.So not only did Mr Smith attack the RAAF for failing to support his plan, but also he blatantly misrepresented its position on the trial. And, of course, Mr Smith alleged in a Senate committee hearing that CASA had been threatened by Ansett Airlines. I am yet to see evidence which substantiates that claim, and I look forward to the production of actual evidence when this matter is before the Senate committee. Let me say this: Qantas took a similar approach, expressing concern about the safety of the trial. But it did not simply write a letter threatening to not fly in the trial area; it actually refused to allow its aircraft to operate until safety concerns were addressed. That is another matter which I am sure the Senate committee will consider.Another area where the government appears to have fundamental problems is the management of the official wool stockpile and the privatisation of Wool International. It is shaping up as another example of a flawed process with inadequate consultation. On Monday afternoon the Wool Council of Australia put out a media statement. The statement was headed, `What is Happening?' It stated, and I quote Wool Council President David Wolfenden:Wool International equity holders want more information about the privatisation of their property.He continued:It has now been four months since the appointment of the Wool International Interim Advisory Board and equity holders want to know what progress has been made on critical issues such as taxation of equity, assessment of stockpile bids, future company structure and business plans.Mr Wolfenden said that equity holders had spent a lot of money on consultants over the past four months and this information should be available to them. In fact, wool growers are looking at a bill of about $4 million.The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee considered in detail the Wool International Amendment Bill in November last year. That bill put in place a freeze on the sale of wool from the official stockpile and arrangements to facilitate the privatisation of Wool International. The Assistant Secretary, Wool and Dairy Branch, of the department, Mr Paul Sutton, told the committee that `very many complex issues will need to be addressed' in the privatisation process. He said there might be elements that require the government to deem certain outcomes by way of legislation for particular privatisation routes. In other words, the legislation may in part commit an incoming board to a certain structure that could limit its flexibility in managing the stockpile. So we have a process now involving only a small group—the minister, two consultants, a senior officer in the Office of Asset Sales, Mr McGauchie and his interim board—but not the owners of the wool.According to a senior departmental officer, this process is addressing very complex issues. Again according to that officer, the outcome of that process may limit the management options of an incoming privatised Wool International board. That means that the owners of the equity in the stockpile will also find that their ability to manage their affairs could be limited. This is no way to do business. I am advised that the government plans to introduce this second wool bill in the other place next week. It appears this will be done without consultation with the industry about the form of the bill or the key issues that relate to the bill. Issues such as the form of the business plan for the privatised entity and the tax treatment to apply to growers' equity in the stockpile will be dealt with in this bill. I understand the bill will then be debated some time in the second week of May. It will probably be forced through the other place and sent here to the Senate.I also pursued this question of consultation with Australian wool growers when the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee was considering the Wool International Bill. I did that for a number of reasons. Firstly, this government has poor form on consultation. Secondly, the policy direction taken by the government in freezing the stockpile contradicted the preferred approach put to the then minister by the industry and then put by the minister to the cabinet. History shows that Mr Anderson failed to win cabinet support for wool growers, and the industry has suffered as a consequence. Thirdly, we are dealing with an asset of significant value at a time when this important industry needs every cent it can get. If there was ever the need for a right policy move for the wool industry, it is now.During those November hearings I asked Mr Sutton how the government planned to work through the detail of the privatisation of Wool International with the industry. Mr Sutton told the committee that the mechanism for consultation would be there and it was up to the industry to organise itself to interact. He said that the industry at that point had not advised the government how it planned to interact. I pursued Mr Sutton further on the point and he said:There will be a provision for an interim board, the purpose of which will be to talk to and relate to the proponents of industry proposals and industry groups generally.That interim board has been given $500,000 of wool growers' funds to facilitate the consultation process, but it appears that little has happened. I have seen only one media statement from the Wool International Interim Advisory Board, which was dated 19 February. In that statement Mr McGauchie said that the interim board's key role was to prepare a draft business plan for the incoming board of the new privatised Wool International. He said further that the role of the interim board was to prepare the business plan and also to liaise with the Office of Asset Sales. Based on that statement, it should be Mr McGauchie's group that is acting as a link between growers and the manager of the privatisation process. But the Wool Council's statement that I referred to earlier makes it clear that there has been no consultation with the industry to this point.The Australian wool industry will be asked to properly consider what is as yet an unseen privatisation bill. Growers will be required to consider the tax implications that will flow once their equity in Wool International is transformed into shares, and I assume they will be required to endorse the business plan referred to earlier. This consultative process must be completed well before the end of this financial year, according to the government. Of course, parliament will be asked to endorse the same matters in the same time frame, while we are dealing with Senate estimates, the tax bills, the budget and any other legislation the government wishes to deal with. The workload facing the Senate over this period is horrendous. Frankly, we will be given an inadequate time to do what ought to be done, and that is to consult with the industry whose money is tied up in the privatisation process. This is no way to run a government. (Time expired)311313:12:003113Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I rise today to speak on a couple of matters of public interest which affect my state of Queensland. The Senate will be aware that I have spoken on these issues a number of times previously, but I believe they are issues which will not go away. I believe that eventually the federal government will have to pass federal whistleblower legislation as the only solution to the issues which I am raising.I want to update the Senate today on two whistleblower issues which will not go away. One is to do with Kevin Lindeberg and the shredding of the Heiner documents. The other is to do with the issue of a former policeman, Mr Gordon Harris. It is an issue of privilege which I believe really does interest the Senate, and I thank the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, for helping me to draw the attention of Mr Harris and others to what now quite clearly is a breach of privilege of the Queensland parliament. The advice given by Harry Evans has subsequently been confirmed by the staff of the Queensland parliament as well. So it is interesting for me to bring this update to the Senate.Briefly, in the first instance, in the matter of the Heiner inquiry and Mr Lindeberg, I point out to the Senate that media reports in Queensland in recent days and evidence given to the Forde inquiry have underlined some information which was not available to the Senate when we conducted the two whistleblower inquiries, nor available when the Privileges Committee looked at that issue again. I am speaking about the whole problem of child abuse, which is a big issue in Queensland and, I know, around Australia. When the Heiner documents were shredded, I do not think anyone was aware of the fact that they actually contained quite a bit of evidence of child abuse in my state.The tragedy is that it has taken eight or nine years since the shredding for that evidence to come to light again. That is the tragedy—that we had a hiatus of a period of time in which we could have been doing something about the issue of child abuse but, because of the shredding, the evidence disappeared from the record and is now being given in great detail to the Forde inquiry.I will go over a couple of matters that I raised in a speech not quite 12 months ago and I will then add to that the recent evidence that has come to light. When I moved my motion to have the Lindeberg matter referred to the Privileges Committee a little over 12 months ago, I indicated that it appeared that what was shredded was evidence of possible child abuse. We now know for a fact that it was. Last year in the Courier-Mail there were reports that Mr Noel Newnham, a former police commissioner in Queensland who conducted an investigation for Mr Lindeberg, uncovered a number of instances of child abuse. They have been the subject of a lot of discussion in the media in Queensland and also in evidence given to the Forde inquiry.Mr Newnham pointed out that the use of excessive or unnecessary force against people in lawful custody amounts to criminal assault. I would remind the Senate that we are talking about evidence of possible serious child abuse of detainees. Children as young as 10 and 12 had been handcuffed to water grates in the open air all night. One child was told that snakes would come out of the grate and was found the next morning with his blanket stuffed down the grate because he was so afraid. Others, it is alleged, were handcuffed to beds for extended periods. It is also alleged that there was inappropriate use of suppressant drugs for other than medical reasons and that there was also psychological and physical abuse.I am not apportioning blame to anyone—that will no doubt arise once Mrs Forde has handed down her report to the current government—but I do believe that we need to underline how abhorrent child abuse is to this Senate and to most reasonable people in Australia. As I said, Mr Newnham pointed out in his report that excessive or unnecessary force against people in lawful custody amounts to criminal assault. Mr Newnham said:In the case of minors such assaults by custodial officials, directly or indirectly, must always be regarded as extremely serious.He further said:. . . Australia has international treaty obligations regarding the treatment of people in custody and of children. It appears plain that officials disregarded some of these obligations.He also said that it was an absurd notion to suggest that the Crown had to shred these documents to prevent people suing each other. I happen to agree with Mr Newnham. It is absurd to suggest that the Crown cannot handle documents containing such evidence, and that its only remedy was to destroy them.To update the Senate, I will add some of the evidence given to the Forde inquiry. It appears that two of the girls who were handcuffed in the John Oxley Centre were Aboriginal girls, and that has been spelt out in evidence to the Forde inquiry. There is no doubt that the treatment of people inside institutions is a very serious matter, and I believe that international conventions, such as the Convention on Torture, need to be invoked in this case.In a recent case, for which the evidence is now coming to light, one young Aboriginal lad hanged himself after being sexually abused in the John Oxley Centre. He used a ventilation grille, and apparently the problem of ventilation grilles was pointed out in some of the evidence shredded in the Heiner inquiry. This is why we need somewhere to expose the problems.There is no doubt that the Forde inquiry will expose many of these issues, but I think it is important that the federal government and this Senate—because of its interest in these cases—be made aware of them. I again raise the issue of federal legislation in terms of whistleblower evidence. I believe that in the end, because many of the problems occur in state institutions, only federal legislation will give us the kind of forum which will enable many of these issues to be dealt with more quickly than has been possible in Queensland because of actions by the Queensland government and also by Queensland departments. That is the first issue.The second issue is also of interest to the Senate. I will read parts of a letter written to me from Gordon Harris, because some of it is fairly technical. An outline of what happened—it is a very long issue—is that Gordon Harris is a former policeman who, because he pursued superiors within the Queensland police force, eventually was forced out of the police force but has continued to present his case in various forums.In one court case in which he was involved—and in which, finally, the magistrate said he was technically in breach of the law but no conviction was recorded against him—much of the evidence used in the case against him by the prosecutor was taken from a document obtained from the Queensland parliament, and that document attracted absolute privilege. For the court to have used the document as evidence against Gordon Harris appears to be a very serious breach of that privilege. Harry Evans has given me some advice on this, and the staff of the Queensland parliament have backed up that advice. It may be that this case will go further, particularly on those grounds, but it is of interest to the Senate that something that Senator Abetz and I were involved in some years ago continues to be a matter of dispute because of the way in which things were done.I will read into the record some of the technical issues so that they are available for the Senate. It may be useful. Gordon Harris and another person wrote to me and said:We have previously detailed the position regarding parliamentary privilege and our claims that a document presented by the Crown to prosecute Gordon Harris was covered by absolute privilege (being published by the Queensland Legislative Assembly) and therefore not admissible in a court of law. Section 40A of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that the powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly are the same as those of the House of Commons, its committees and members from time to time, and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1869 applies in Queensland (as it does throughout Australian jurisdictions) by virtue of s.40A. Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1992 defines the document in question as a proceeding in parliament and therefore covered by absolute privilege.It is a very interesting case, and it seems that not only was that document used to prosecute Gordon Harris but also it was used very selectively. At the time, it was not available to the Senate committee, except that we were allowed to read it in a closed room and not allowed to comment on it when we went out of the room. That document is now available publicly, and when one reads it, one can see how selectively it was used in prosecuting Gordon Harris in the court. I think that represents a very serious miscarriage of justice as well as a breach of parliamentary privilege. I believe it is important that I bring this issue to the attention of the Senate. The prosecution was brought with the knowledge of the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission, the Queensland Attorney-General at the time, the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions and the Queensland Police Service. It seems to me that, when all of those bodies work together to bring a prosecution against someone and then use a document which is subject to parliamentary privilege and quote from it very selectively—a document which is not available publicly and not available to Gordon Harris to defend himself—a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred.Let me say in closing how grateful I am to the Clerk, Harry Evans, for his advice on this matter. It really did help Gordon Harris to work his way through the maze of technical detail. It was very helpful and may help in the end to get justice for Gordon Harris on this issue, as the issue may eventually go to the High Court of Australia for determination.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—For a change, that was a good speech.311513:26:003115Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—High praise from Senator Abetz! It has been said that Australia's future lies with Asia. The fact that this remains the case in spite of the present Asian economic downturn is dictated by the logic of our geographic location in proximity to Asia, the development of a well-off Asian middle class which has created an enormous potential market with spending power equal to that of Australians, and the continued development of political, social and legal institutions in the Asian region equal to our own or hopefully to be so in the future.For Australia to successfully interact with our Asian neighbours, both Australian business and government need to know more about Asia. Today I would like to tell the Senate a little about the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University in Western Australia. The aim of the Asia Research Centre is to conduct research into the economic, political and social issues affecting Asia and provide both the background for business ventures in Asia as well as basic research on the changing nature of the region. In the Senate today I would like to commend the valuable work that the centre has achieved and to strongly support the centre's application for a renewed grant from the Australian Research Council under the special research centres category.I would like to give a little background on the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University. The centre was established in 1990, which is only nine years ago, and is Australia's only Asia-orientated special research centre. The centre is involved with innovative research relevant to Australian business interests in Asia. It has, in its short history, attracted the best international scholars, delivered high quality consultant work for Australian business and government and contributed widely to the public debate about Australia's place in Asia. For these reasons, the Murdoch University Asia Research Centre is quite rightly regarded as a centre of national excellence.The board of the centre is composed of distinguished people with a diverse working knowledge of business in Asia. The board is chaired by Mr Ken Court, a Western Australian businessman who has a very wide personal experience of business in Asia, especially in Taiwan and Vietnam, and he is assisted on the board by representatives from both business and government.The board includes such people as Mr Bruce Sutherland, who is a director of Gunn Sutherland Corporate Pty Ltd; Mr John Langouland, the Western Australian Under Treasurer; Mr Mike O'Neil, the General Manager of the ANZ Banking Group in WA; Ms Valrie Daview, the director of a communications company in Western Australia; Mr John Akehurst, the Managing Director of Woodside Energy; and Sir Charles Court, whose record in attracting Asian investment to Australia is unequalled, as the Pilbara iron ore industry and the North West Shelf project both demonstrate. Both of those general industries are worth billions of dollars. Sir Charles Court has an unequalled knowledge of dealing with Asian business and attracting Asian investment to Australia.The academic team of 13 distinguished scholars is headed by Professor Richard Robison, whose research interests are concerned with the politics of the Asian region. Professor Robison has published widely, his definitive work being Indonesia: the Rise of Capital, which analyses the emergence of business and the role of the state in Indonesia. Other notable members of the academic team include, for example, Ms Jane Hutchinson, a research fellow at the Asia Research Centre and also a lecturer in politics and international studies at Murdoch University. Ms Hutchinson's primary research interest is in labour in the Philippines. Ms Hutchinson is currently contributing to a series of books on business in Asia, entitled The New Rich in Asia.Associate Professor Garry Rodan is another distinguished member of the academic staff. Professor Rodan is the Chair of the Department of Politics and International Studies at Murdoch University and is also a research fellow at the Asia Research Centre. His primary research interests relate to the political and economic development of Singapore and the democratisation of Asia.Dr Sally Sargeson, who is a respected China scholar, is another a research fellow at the Asia Research Centre. Dr Sargeson's research interests include the social effects of economic reform in China and changes to property rights in China. It can be seen that the Asia Research Centre has attracted highly skilled academics who have a wide range of expertise in the political, economic and social changes which are occurring in Asia. For a centre which has been established only for the relatively short time of nine years, the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University has achieved some outstanding outcomes.The Asia Research Centre seeks to build on its academic foundation by doing applied work for both government and business as well as pure academic research. Quoting from material provided by the Asia Research Centre, I would like to provide senators with an indicative list of some of the outcomes of the Murdoch University Asia Research Centre. Published material in book form coming from the work of people at the Asia Research Centre includes: Southern China in Transi tion, which was written for the East Asia Analytical Unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Doing Business with Indonesia: Tax Guide for Investors; and a Guide to Doing Business in Vietnam, by Cisca Spencer and Gitti Heij, written for the WA Department of Commerce and Trade, for use by WA businessmen interested in working and seeking investment in Asia—and of course for businessmen in general in Australia seeking to invest in Vietnam. The centre has also undertaken privately commissioned research for AusAID, the Australian Stock Exchange, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Asian Development Bank, the Australian Taiwan Business Council, the WA Department of Commerce and Trade, Oxford Analytical and a number of business clients. One of the activities the centre has engaged in for business has been tailor-made business training courses which have included, for example, courses on the Indonesian economy and society, courses on new identities in South-East Asia, and a course on ASEAN and AFTA for the Vietnamese Department of Trade.The Asia Research Centre does not limit its focus to the world of academia, but seeks to disseminate material it produces through workshops and seminars contributing to a better public understanding of the complexities of doing business in Asia. Apart from this, the Asia Research Centre has a major research focus on institutions which can be the foundation for a civil society emerging in Asia, such as the press, the judiciary, parliamentary systems and the civil service. Behind all this there is a university academic centre. Postgraduate students are an important part of the centre's activities and a valued part of its intellectual life. Postgraduates come from Australia and across the region. Currently the centre has 17 students undertaking PhDs and in nine years has graduated five students with PhDs, which is a remarkable record.In conclusion, I would like to put on record in the Senate today that I believe a fundamental reason why the Asia Research Centre should be supported by the Australian Research Council to continue its work is that it has developed an expertise over the last nine years and it would be a great tragedy if—as so often happens in Australia when we develop centres of expertise—that expertise is dissipated and lost. It is very important to ensure that the expertise which has been developed at the Murdoch research centre is maintained and kept together so that they can keep on doing the work that they have been doing, which has proved so useful to Australian business.Another reason for supporting the continued funding of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University is the fact that it is located in Western Australia. The proximity of Asia to Western Australia and the greater awareness that exists in Western Australia of the economic opportunities which Asia offers and, further, the extensive links WA business have with their Asian neighbours means that the location of the centre in Western Australia is a powerful reason why the Murdoch team should continue to be supported. Critical to successful Australian investment in Asia is basic research on conditions in the region, which will bring understanding of the changing political, economic and social conditions in Asia. No other centre in Australia is doing the kind of basic research which is being done at the Murdoch University Asia Research Centre. I am sure that senators will agree that it is certainly in Australia's national interest that the Murdoch centre continue to be funded to provide this kind of basic research into conditions in Asia, for the benefit of Australian businessmen. Mr Acting Deputy President, as I said, I believe the Asia Research Centre is a vital centre of excellence that deserves the support of the Australian Research Council. In view of the outstanding record of the Murdoch group, I trust that the application for ongoing basic research funding as a `special research centre' which has been made by Murdoch University will be given favourable consideration by the Australian Research Council because, as I have said, there can be no doubt that it would be a tragedy for the Australian nation were the Murdoch University group not able to continue their work. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate a list of the publications produced by the staff of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University, if that is the wish of the Senate.Leave granted.The list read as follows—Publications: BooksThe New Rich in AsiaDavid S.G. Goodman and Richard Robison (eds)`The New Rich in Asia' Special issue of Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, December 1992Richard Robison and David S.G. Goodman (eds) The New Rich in Asia: Mobilephones, McDonald's and Middle-class Revolution , Routledge, 1995Garry Rodan (ed.) Political Oppositions in Industrialising Asia , Routledge, 1996Krishna Sen and Maila Stivens (eds) Gender and Power in Affluent Asia , Routledge, 1998Jane Hutchison and Andrew Brown (eds) Organising Labour/Globalising Asia , Routledge, forthcomingMichael Pinches (ed.) Cultural Constructions of the new Rich in Asia , Routledge, forthcomingChua Beng Huat (ed.) Consumption Patterns of Asia's New Rich , Routledge, forthcomingEngagement with AsiaRichard Robison (ed.) Pathways to Asia: The Politics of Engagement , Allen & Unwin, 1996Richard Robison (ed.)`Politics and Economics in the Twenty-first Century: Is There an Asian Model?', Special issue of the Pacific Review , vol. 9, no. 3, 1996, pp. 309-27Michael Byrnes Australia and the Asia Game , Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, 1994Asian CapitalismsKanishka Jayasuriya (ed.) Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia , Routledge, 1998Richard Robison, Hyuk Rae Kim, Kanishka Jayasuriya and Mark Beeson (eds) From Miracle to Meltdown: The End of Asian Capitalism? , forthcomingSally Sargeson (ed.) Collective Goods, Collective Actions , forthcomingStudies in Political Economy and GlobalisationSoutheast AsiaDavid Hill and Krishna Sen Indonesian Cultures in Resistance and Change , Oxford University Press, forthcomingMark Beeson Competing Capitalisms: Australia, Japan, and Economic Competition in the Asia-Pacific , St Martin's Press, forthcomingVedi R. Hadiz Workers and the State in New Order Indonesia , Routledge, 1997Kevin Hewison (ed.) Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation , Routledge, 1997Garry Rodan, Kevin Hewison and Richard Robison (eds) The Political Economy of Southeast Asia: An Introduction , Oxford University Press, 1997Ian Chalmers and Vedi R. Hadiz (eds) The Politics of Economic Development in Indonesia: Contending Perspectives , Routledge, 1997 Rob Lambert (ed.) State and labour in New Order Indonesia , Asia Paper no. 6, University of Western Australia Press and Asia Research Centre, 1997Robinson Pangaribuan The Indonesian State Secretariat 1945-1993 , Asia Research Centre, 1995 (translated and edited by Vedi r. Hadiz)Chua Beng Huat Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore , Routledge, 1995Ky Cao (ed.) The Changing Financial Markets of East Asia , Routledge, 1995Adam Schwarz A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s , Allen & Unwin, 1994David T. Hill The Press in New Order Indonesia , Asia Paper no. 4, University of Western Australia Press and Asia Research Centre, 1994Garry Rodan (ed.) Singapore Changes Guard: Social, Political and Economic Directions in the 1990s , Longman Cheshire, 1993Kevin Hewison, Richard Robison and Garry Rodan (eds) Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism , Allen & Unwin, 1993Garry Rodan The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization: National State and International Capital , Macmillan, London and St Martin's Press, New York 1989; translated into Japanese by Keiko T. Tamura for San'ichi, Tokyo 1992. Malaysian edition by Forum, 1993David Birch Singapore Media: Communication Strategies and Practice , Asia Paper no. 1, Longman Cheshire, 1992ChinaSally Sargeson Reworking China's Proletariat , Macmillan, forthcomingLance Gore Market Communism: The Institutional Foundation of China's Post-Mao Hyper-Growth , Oxford University Press, 1998Ian Scott (ed.) Institutional Change and the Political Transition in Hong Kong , Macmillan and Asia Research Centre, 1998Feng Chongyi and David S.G. Goodman China's Hainan Province: Economic Development and Investment Environment , Asia Paper no. 5, University of Western Australia Press in association with the Asia Research Centre, 1995David S.G. Goodman Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese Revolution , Routledge, 1995. Translated into Mandarin and published by the Central Party School Publishing House as Deng Xiaoping zhengzhi pingzhuanDavid S.G. Goodman and Gerald Segal China Deconstructs: Politics, Trade and Regionalism , Routledge, 1994David S.G. Goodman and Beverley Hooper (eds) China's Quiet Revolution: New Interactions between State and Society , Longman Cheshire, 1994David S.G. Goodman and Gerald Segal China in the 1990s: Crisis Management and Beyond , Oxford University Press, 1991 David S.G. Goodman China and the West: Ideas and Activists , Manchester University Press, 1991Studies in Environmental Policy Philip Hirsch and Carol Warren (eds) The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia: Resources and Resistance , Routledge, 1998Phillip Hirsch Seeing Forests for Trees: Environment in Thailand , Silkworm Books, Chiengmai, 1997Kylie Elston and Carol Warren Environmental Regulation in Indonesia , Asia Paper no. 3, University of Western Australia Press and Asia Research Centre, 1994Kylie Elston and Greg Bankoff Environmental Regulation in Malaysia and Singapore , Asia paper no. 2, University of Western Australia Press and Asia Research Centre, 1994Selected Reports and Policy Studies1998Cisca Spencer and David Quane Agribusiness in Sulawesi and Kalimantan , Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, forthcoming.1997Gitte Heij and Thorsten Stromback Australian Services in Indonesia: Learning from Experience , Policy Paper 19, Asia Research Centre, 1997.1996Cisca Spencer, Trevor Boughton and Usmanto Njo Agribusiness Opportunities in Sumatra and East Java , Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 1996Yanrui Wu Opportunities and Trends in China's Health Care System , Policy Paper 18, Asia Research Centre, 1996Yanrui Wu Household Consumption and Market Prospects in China , Policy Paper 17, Asia Research Centre, 19961995Gitte Heij and Cisca Spencer A Guide to Doing Business in Vietnam , Policy Paper 16, 1995Don Smart and Grace Ang Enhancing Australia's Recruitment of International Students: A Survey of Taiwan , 1995, Policy Paper 15, 1995Don Smart and Grace Ang Enhancing Australia's Recruitment of International Students: Singapore Revisited 1995 , Policy Paper 14, 19951993Kevin Hewison Thailand , the Australia-Asia Institute, Asia-Australia Briefing papers, vol.2, no.4, 1993Philip Lewis On the Move: The Changing Structure of Singapore's Labour Market , Asia Research Centre, 1993Don Smart and Grace Ang Medium-term Market Opportunities for Australian Education: A Survey of Hong Kong , Policy Paper 12, 1993 Allen Nash Investment Opportunities in the Vietnam Textile Industry , Policy Paper 11, 1993Allen Nash Investment Opportunities in the Indonesian Textile Industry , Policy Paper 10, 1993Gitte Heij Doing Business in Indonesia: A Tax Guide for Australian Investors (vol.1), Tax Administration and Compliance in Indonesia (vol.2), Policy Paper 9, 1993Allen Nash The Structure of the Taiwan Wool Processing Industry: Implications for Australian Industry Development , Policy Paper 8, 1993Joe H. Zhang and Joan X. Zheng Challenges and Opportunities for Foreign Banks in China , Policy Paper 7, 1993Don Smart and Grace Ang Overseas Student Recruitment: Some Recommendations on the Preparation of Print Material , Policy Paper 6, 1993Leslie O'Brien The Economic Climate for Joint Ventures in Malaysia , Policy Paper 4, 1993Allen Nash The Korean Wool Processing Industry Structure: Implications for Australian Industry Development , Policy Paper 3, 19931992David S.G. Goodman, Bruce Jacobs, Shiu-hing Lo, Cisca Spencer, On Kit Tam and John Zerby Post-1997 Economic Integration in Southern China , East Asia Analytical Unit, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 1992Richard Robinson, Cisca Spencer, Shiu-hing Lo and Ian Chalmers Investment Flows in East and Southeast Asia , Consultancy Report for the Department of State Development, Perth, 1992Don Smart and Grace Ang An Analysis of Print Materials for Overseas Student Recruitment: Some Recommendations for Best Practices , Consultancy Report for the Department of Education, Employment and Training, Perth 1992Don Smart and Grace Ang Medium-term Market Opportunities for Australian Higher Education: A Pilot Survey of Singapore , Policy Paper 2, 1992 Don Smart and Alan Marshall Submission to Industry Commission on Draft Report on Exports of Education Services , Policy Paper 1, 1992Selected Journal Articles1998David Bourchier`Indonesianising Indonesia: Conservative Indigenism in an Age of Globalisation', Social Semiotics , vol. 8, no. 2/3, pp. 203-14Mark T. Berger`A New East-West Synthesis? APEC and Competing Narratives of Regional Integration in the Post-Cold War Asia-Pacific', Alternatives , vol. 23, pp. 1-28Kanishka Jayasuriya`Understanding `Asian Values' as a form of Reactionary Modernization', Contemporary Politics , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 77-91Garry Rodan`The Internet and Political Control in Singapore', Political Science Quarterly , vol. 113, no. 1, 1998, pp. 63-90Richard Robison and Andrew Rosser`Resisting Reform: Indonesia's New Order, the IMF, and the Contest for Change', World Development , August 1998Garry Rodan`Asia and the International Press: the Political Significance of Expanding Markets', Democratization , vol. 5, no. 2, 1998, pp. 125-54Garry Rodan`Singapore in 1997: Living with the Neighbours', Asian Survey , vol. XXXVIII, no. 2, 1998, pp. 177-82Garry Rodan`Markets and the Media: Economic Development and Press Control in Asia', Harvard Asia Pacific Review , vol. 2, no. 1, Winter 1997-98, pp. 34-8Mark Beeson`The End of the Miracle? Japan and the East Asian Crisis: Review Article', Political Science , forthcomingMark Beeson and Ann Firth`Neoliberalism as a Political Rationality: Australian Public Policy since the 1980s, Journal of Sociology , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 215-31Mark Beeson`Indonesia, the East Asian Crisis, and the Commodification of the Nation-State', New Political Economy , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 357-74 Mark Beeson and Kanishka Jayasuriya`The Political Rationalities of Regionalism: APEC and the EU in Comparative Perspective', The Pacific Review , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 311-36Mark Beeson and Vedi R. Hadiz`Labor and the Politics of Structural Adjustment in Australia and Indonesia', Journal of Contemporary Asia , forthcomingMark Beeson and Mark Berger`Lineages of Liberalism and Miracles of Modernization: The World Bank, the East Asian Trajectory and the International Development Debate', Third World Quarterly , vol. 19, no. 3, 1998, pp. 487-504Phil Lewis`Developing Australia's Globalisation Strategies in South East Asia: The Role of Business Education', Asian Academy of Management Journal , vol. 2, no. 1, forthcoming1997Mark Beeson`Who Pays the Ferryman? Industry Policy and Shipbuilding in Australia', Australian Journal of Political Science , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 437-54Mark Beeson and Mark Cloney`Australian-based Agribusines and Asia: The Political Economy of Regional Food Production', Journal of Asian Business , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1-19Mark Beeson`Bilateral Economic Relations in a Global Political Economy: Australia and Japan', Competition and Change , no. 2, pp. 137-73Mark Beeson`Organised Labour: Australia's Reconstructed Revisited', Journal of Australian Political Economy special issue: `Australia Reconstructed: Ten Years On', no. 39, pp. 55-71Vedi R. Hadiz`Ekonomi politik "kepentingan nasional"', Prisma , vol. XXVI, no. 5, pp. 75-7David Hill and Krishna Sen`Wiring the Warung to Global Gateways: The Internet in Indonesia', Indonesia , no. 63, pp. 68-89Kanishka Jayasuriya`The Rule of Law: Authoritarian Governance in East Asia', Harvard Asia Pacific Review , vol.2, no. 1, pp. 31-34Kanishka Jayasuriya`Franz Newmann on the Rule of Law and Capitalism: The East Asian Case', Journal of Asia Pacific Economy , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 357-77 Phil Lewis`Temporary Movements of Professional Labour in East and South East Asia', Asia Pacific Journal of Economics and Business , December 1997, pp. 24-40Richard Robison`Building Markets: The Confusion Behind Indonesia's Economic Reform', Harvard Asia Pacific Review , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 89-91Garry Rodan`Civil Society and Other Political Responsibilities in Southeast Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 156-78Garry Rodan`Singapore in 1996: Extended Election Fever', Asian Survey , vol. XXXVII, no. 2, pp. 175-801996Mark Beeson`Asia's Disparate Political Economics and the Prospects for Transnational "Convergence"', Asian Journal of Public Administration , Hong Kong, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 141-67Vedi Hadiz`Buruh dalam Penataan Politik Awal Orde Baru', Prisma , 7, pp. 3-15Kanishka Jayasuriya`The Rule of Law and Capitalism in East Asia', Pacific Review special issue: `Politics and Economics in the Twenty-first Century: Is There an Asian Model?', Routledge, London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 367-88Garry Rodan`The Internationalization of Ideological Conflict: Asia's New Significance', Pacific Review special issue: `Politics and Economics in the Twenty-first Century: Is There an Asian Model?', Routledge, London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 328-51Don Smart and Grace Ang`The Internationalisation of Australian Higher Education', International Higher Education , no. 6, URL: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/ direct1/newslet6.htmlDon Smart`Careful or the Export Bubble Might Burst', Directions in Education , vol.5, no. 15, p. 1Herb Thompson and Deborah Kennedy`Ecological Economics of Biodiversity and Tropical Rainforest Deforestation', The Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics , 7, pp. 169-90 Herb Thompson and James Duggie`Political Economy of the Forestry Industry in Indonesia', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 352-65Herb Thompson`Indonesia's Wood Resource: Trends and Policies', Journal of Mineral Policy, Business and Environment , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 14-23Herb Thompson`The Pulp and Paper Industry: Indonesia in an International Context', Journal of Asian Business , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 41-55Yanrui Wu`Technical Efficiency and Firm Attributes in the Chinese Iron and Steel Industry', International Review of Applied Economics , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 235-48Yu-Shan Wu`Away from Socialism: The Asian Way', Pacific Review special issue: `Politics and Economics in the Twenty-first Century: Is there an Asian Model?', Routledge, London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 410-251995You-il Lee and Yoon Hwan Shin`Korean Direct Investment in Southeast Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia , no. 25, vol. 2, pp. 179-96Yanrui Wu`Total Factor Productivity Growth, Technological Progress and Technical Efficiency Change in China: A Three Sector Analysis', Journal of Comparative Economics , no. 21, pp. 207-29Yanrui Wu, E. Li and N. Samuel`Food Consumption in Urban China: An Empirical Analysis', Applied Economics , no. 27, pp. 509-191994David Brown and David Martin Jones`Singapore and the Myth of the Liberalizing Middle Class', Pacific Review , vol. 7, no. 1, 1994, pp. 79-88Kevin Hewison and Andrew Brown`Labour and Unions in an Industrialising Thailand', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 483-514Philip Hirsch`Where are the Roots of Thai Environmentalism?', TE Quarterly Environmental Journal , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5-15Krishna Sen`Changing Horizons of Television in Indonesia', Southeast Asian Journal of Social Sciences , vol. 22, 1994 Malcolm Tull with A.R. Krishnan`Resource Use and Environmental Management in Japan 1890-1990', Australian Economic History Review , September 19941993Jou-juo Chu`Political Liberalisation and the Rise of Taiwanese Labour Radicalism', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 23, no. 2, April 1993David Hill`The Factory', by Nh Dini (annotated translation with introduction), Indonesia (Cornell University), no. 55, April 1993Richard Robison and Vedi R. Hadiz`Privatization or the Reorganization of Dirigism? Indonesian Economic Policy in the 1990s', Canadian Journal of Development Studies , special issue, June 19931992David S.G. Goodman`Reforming China: Foreign Contacts, Foreign Values?', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 1, 1992David S.G. Goodman`China: The State and Capitalist Revolution', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, 1992Kevin Hewison`Communication: Reply to Professor Malcolm Falkus', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 22, no. 3, 1992Kevin Hewison`Thailand: On Becoming a NIC', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, 1992Jane Hutchison`Women and the Philippine Garments Export Industry', Journal of Contemporary Asia , vol. 22, no. 4, 1992Richard Robison`Indonesia: An Autonomous Domain of Power?', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, 1992Richard Robison and David S.G. Goodman`The New Rich in Asia: Affluence, Mobility and Power', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, 1992Garry Rodan`Singapore: Emerging Tensions in the "Dictatorship of the Middle Class"', Pacific Review , vol. 5, no. 4, 1992Garry Rodan`Singapore's Leadership Transition: Erosion or Refinement of Authoritarian Rule?', Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars , vol. 24, no. 1, 1992 312313:40:003123Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—This time is set aside each Wednesday for discussion of matters of public interest. I wish to raise a matter of extreme public interest today, that is, the forthcoming election this Saturday in New South Wales. Next Saturday, the people of New South Wales will be given the opportunity—and no doubt they will take the opportunity—to re-elect the Carr Labor government and continue the growth and good government of New South Wales.In recent weeks in this chamber some members of the government, particularly Senator Tierney and Senator Vanstone, have, in a last desperate attempt to assist the flagging fortunes of their coalition colleagues in New South Wales, attempted to denigrate the New South Wales government on the issue of drugs and policing. I find it despicable that they would stoop to such low levels as to use an issue of such importance and concern to all Australians, an issue that should be approached on the basis of bipartisan cooperation rather than simply used for base political motives. It demonstrates that they have nothing at all to put forward to counter the great record of the New South Wales Labor government.I want to take the time today to highlight to the Senate the achievements of the Carr Labour government, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. They show the way for the rest of Australia. In the Labor government's first term, rural and regional New South Wales accounted for some $12 billion of the $25 billion of new investment statewide, that is, 50 per cent of that investment was directed at rural and regional New South Wales. A share of this order for the country is a first for any postwar government in New South Wales.New South Wales has the lowest unemployment rate of any state in Australia. In February of this year, two-thirds of all the new jobs in Australia were created in New South Wales. The rate of jobs growth in rural and regional New South Wales actually exceeds the rate in Greater Sydney—4.7 per cent in rural and regional New South Wales. It is the actions of the New South Wales Labor government that have contributed directly and significantly to that turnaround.One can point to many instances where government support from the Carr Labor government has contributed to the creation of real jobs throughout rural and regional New South Wales. In Bombala, for instance, the Labor government signed an agreement with the Softwood Development Corporation which resulted in the creation of 300 local jobs with a $50 million mill. Similarly, in Tumut the agreement reached between the government and Visy Board has resulted in the establishment of a pulp and paper mill, some $350 million worth of investments generating 980 jobs. You can go across the way to Bega. The establishment of a cheese cutting and packaging plant in Bega was a $20 million investment and 150 jobs were created. In Holbrook, another mill, a $19 million investment, is revitalising a small Australian country town. For the first time in its history, the town will be setting up a local chamber of commerce.The achievements in those few areas that I have mentioned have resulted in the creation of substantial jobs. I can add more. In Griffith, a major chicken processing company, Barriers, obtained the support of the New South Wales Labor government. This enabled them to invest $125 million. That is going to create up to 1,000 new jobs in that region. In some places where we have seen, unfortunately, the closure of some operations in the mining and the meat industries, we have seen the New South Wales government take action to have those establishments reopened and those jobs retained. That happened in Lithgow with the recent reopening of the Clarence colliery. Ninety jobs resulted in that hard-hit region.Similarly, due to the mismanagement of the owners—indeed, they indulged in some practices which certainly require scrutiny—the meatworks at Grafton was closed. The Labor government stepped in and through the great work of Harry Woods, the local state member and the minister for regional development in New South Wales, the Grafton meatworks was reopened and jobs were saved in that area. In 1996, the proposed Cadia gold and copper mine in Orange was facing real difficulties and the project could have been lost. The Labor government passed special legislation to secure this investment which is worth around $400 million and will generate 300 jobs in that area.One could go on. The Southland colliery in the Hunter Valley was shut down and 80 miners were left without work. The New South Wales government stepped in and worked with the industry and the unions to ensure that the mine could reopen. This is what happened last week, with jobs for 100 miners. These are real achievements of the New South Wales Labor government in rural and regional Australia, areas that clearly have cried out for government support, government initiative and government backing to create jobs and improve the fortunes of the people.One of the first acts of the coalition federal government was to abolish the department of regional development. We have seen their policies. If they get their way on Telstra the situation will be made even worse in terms of the reduction and the removal of government services. What we are seeing in New South Wales is the reverse. We are seeing the re-establishment of services. For instance, the former coalition government in New South Wales closed down passenger rail services to Griffith and Broken Hill. Under the Labor government in New South Wales they have been reinstated. For 20 years country rail lines in New South Wales have been closing down and now the Labor government is reversing this trend. Similarly, the government is upgrading the Pacific Highway. A 10-year $1.6 billion project will improve safety and travel times between Hexham near Newcastle and the Queensland border.In the area of education, New South Wales now spends more per public school student than any other mainland state. We are investing $1.1 billion a year on schools and colleges. This is a great improvement on the position when the government was elected in 1995. Labor has put 90,000 new computers into schools, including about 30,000 in country New South Wales. Last year, the Labor government introduced Country Online in 20 schools to enable parents, farmers and local business people to use Internet and computer facilities in the evenings at their local school. These are the things that Senator Alston comes in here and talks about in theoretical terms. What you have in New South Wales under a Labor government is real action, with those facilities being provided to country people.Turning to the area of health, this federal government slashed funding for health to the states in its first and second budgets. It stopped the dental scheme, fooled around with private health insurance and wasted money. Federal funding of the public hospital system has been allowed to decline. That reduction in federal funds had to be made up by the state Labor government in New South Wales, and it has done that. For the first time in the state's history, annual health funding to country New South Wales exceeds $1 billion. That is a 37 per cent increase over the amount that was spent when the Greiner-Fahey government lost office in 1995. It is a huge increase and one which has been achieved not just without additional support from the federal government but with reduced support in terms of the contributions under this federal government compared to the great support given by the previous Hawke and Keating Labor governments.Country hospitals in New South Wales are now treating almost 1,300 extra patients a year. There are more than 300 extra doctors working in country New South Wales. We recognise that that problem still needs more work done on it, and the government is looking at initiatives to encourage more doctors to move to and remain in rural areas. The state Labor government has built or upgraded 16 hospitals throughout New South Wales, nine of which were located in rural and regional areas.If we turn to the area of government administration, under the leadership of Harry Woods, the state minister, and due to the Rebuilding Country New South Wales program, we are seeing government jobs being created in country New South Wales. Services and government facilities are being moved from the city into country areas. For instance, when the Rural Assistance Authority relocated from Sydney to Orange, 48 jobs were created in Orange. In the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales, 140 research jobs were relocated from Sydney to country centres, where they should be. In the Department of Land and Water Conservation, 251 positions are being transferred from city to country areas. On top of that, 1,300 extra government jobs will be created in country areas; 400 of those in the Department of Education and Training and 540 in the Department of Health. I could go on but time does not permit.Last Thursday in Queanbeyan Premier Carr launched the campaign for country New South Wales. Next Saturday we are going to see the return of people like Harry Woods and the election of other Labor candidates in seats throughout rural and regional New South Wales, because the people in those areas are fed up with this federal government. They are fed up with the National Party, who no longer represent the interests of country people. The National Party are more interested in squabbling with their coalition former mates than they are in representing the real interests of rural New South Wales. It will be a great victory on Saturday when the Carr Labor government is returned in New South Wales and can continue to take up the fight for country people and can continue to resist the destructive policies of the Howard and Fischer federal government.312513:54:003125Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I think the last speech should have finished with the words `Written, spoken and authorised by Bob Carr on behalf of the Labor Party'.This afternoon I want to address an article that appeared in the Australian higher education supplement today where the address of the new Chancellor of the University of Technology in Sydney was printed, albeit in edited form. The new chancellor celebrated academic freedom and the right to dissent at universities and talked about the freedom to express and advocate a concept. He talked about governing bodies of universities being the traditional guardians of independence and academic integrity. So I would have thought that the chancellor, being so committed to freedom and being so committed to independence, would also of necessity, to be consistent and logical, be supportive of voluntary student unionism. Instead, he does this amazing intellectual somersault to then argue in favour of compulsory student unionism.He has made some quite bizarre assertions. He says in part of his speech:Hitherto, the view has been taken by the governing bodies of universities that extracurricular activities provided by membership of student unions are a vital element in tertiary education.If it is so vital, why is it that the only thing that this man's university and, indeed, all the other universities around the country demand is not involvement in membership but the payment of a membership fee? That is the only thing that is compulsory. Yet he asserts that being involved in sports and other cultural activities is of great importance to the educational experience. If it is so important, make the involvement compulsory. But, oh no, the only thing that is compulsory is that you hand your money over to the student union. That completely and utterly debunks the new chancellor's assertions about the need for a compulsory student union fee.Then he goes on with some absolute pomposity, to put it mildly, where he says:The student clubs and societies provide forums in which students mix with students from other disciplines—as though they need a compulsory student union to mix with other students. The logic and the complete lack of comprehension of what happens in student life, I must say, is somewhat embarrassing. Anyway, he goes on:where they may join together to further a common interest—and then this is the greatest bit—where they learn their role as citizens.Does that mean that, if you do not go to university, you do not learn the role of being a citizen and so we should only consider university graduates as citizens? What an absolutely pompous and ridiculous statement to have made.Indeed, at universities they are saying membership is not compulsory because you can opt out of membership. Why is it, if the experience is so important, that universities allow you to opt out of membership but you still have to pay the fee?He then tells us that it would be wrong to quell the dissent that has been so often and so useful a burr under the saddle of authority—those useful contributions like telling students how to inject heroin, how to get away with shoplifting and how to get a skinful of alcohol and still drive home and beat the breathalyser! They are the useful things to which these compulsory fees contribute that the new Chancellor of the University of Technology of Sydney seems to be celebrating.He then has the audacity to ask, `And to what end is this legislation being introduced?' He asserts no adequate reason for the proposed amendment has been forthcoming. Unfortunately, the good gentleman clearly has not been talking to many students right around this nation, nor has he read the second reading speech.Just to remind the gentleman and those opposite, the legislation is designed to give students choice. Students should be able to choose which associations they join, giving them the same freedoms on campus that they have elsewhere. Students should be able to choose which services they purchase rather than having these decisions made for them by student unions. That is the sort of sensible approach that this government is taking to this issue.The new Chancellor of the University of Technology in Sydney has done a great disservice both to himself and his institution. It appears that he supports the draconian attitudes of university administrations around the country that say it is more important that you pay your compulsory fee rather than be entitled to an education. You know what happens if you do not pay your fee? You are denied an education. What is the greater social good? Surely the greater social good is allowing a student an education rather than insisting on this draconian system of compulsory student unionism.Questions Without Notice312731273127Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister now admit that the insurance industry will have no choice but to slug consumers an extra $2.5 billion in insurance premium increases due to the introduction of the GST? Why is the government in a state of denial about this $2.5 billion blunder, given the evidence of the Insurance Council of Australia and the NRMA? Did the government fail to properly consider the transitional impact the GST would have on the insurance industry, or was it just a deliberate grab for an extra $2.5 billion in revenue?3127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Cook, for that question. The question again goes to the tax reform package which this government went to the election on and was elected on and regarding which this government calls on the Senate to make sure we keep our promises. It is not only the government that is calling on the Labor Party to do this. That is why I greatly appreciate the question from Senator Cook. Mr Bob Hogg, a former federal and state director of the Labor Party, a former senior adviser to Mr Beazley and Mr Keating—and, indeed, a highly respected Labor Party individual—today called on the Labor Party to look to the future and make sure that they pass the GST reform package.This question is from Senator Cook, who is perhaps most famous for admitting that the Labor Party is a high taxing party—in contrast to the coalition, which of course is a low taxing party. Let me make it clear that the government has properly accounted for all GST revenue, including the transitional measures applying GST to insurance. The government is consulting with the insurance industry on the technical application of the GST. The transitional GST provisions for insurance are consistent with the GST transitional provisions for other sectors of the economy. In our view the ICA should, when setting the price of premiums, take into account all reforms proposed by the government. The Treasury has estimated that, after the introduction of the new tax reform system, the price of insurance services should rise by about 0.8 per cent. Particular insurance policies will change in price by differing amounts.Treasury has accounted in its figuring for both measures that have been complained about by the Insurance Council of Australia, and we are confident of our figures and of our tax reform package. We believe that once again we are seeing the sort of nitpicking that Senator Cook has become quite famous for. We would urge the Labor Party, if they will not listen to us and if they will not listen to the voice of the Australian people, to listen to Bob Hogg, who today gave them a lesson. Do not follow the pathways to nowhere of Mr Beazley. What we want you to do is to follow the advice of a former distinguished Labor person and pass the GST package.3127Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, since you have described $2.5 billion as `nitpicking', can you tell this chamber when you will provide a final reply to the Insurance Council about their claim? Isn't it the case that, in the Treasurer's haste to look like a visionary with a bold new tax plan, he left behind the detail before launching the GST, and that we now know that it is riddled with anomalies, inconsistencies and unintended consequences? In short, when you read the fine print, there is a lot of devil in the detail; isn't that true?3127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That was the most waffly question I have heard for a long time, but even a question composed largely of waffle will receive from me, as always, a serious answer. I said that the Treasury has accounted in its latest mid-year economic forecast for both the measures that were raised by the ICA; so, Senator, you should not worry on that score. Yet again, you have been proven to be wrong. All I can say to you is that senior people in your own party have broken ranks today and said, `For heaven's sake, pass the GST and get on the way to the future.'31273127McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to Senator Alston, representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. As the minister would be aware, unemployment continues to decline under the economic management of the coalition, and is at the lowest level since 1990. Minister, what initiatives does the government propose to further reduce unemployment and expand employment opportunities for all Australians? Is the minister aware of any threats to job creation programs?3128Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, we have done an enormous amount—people do not describe Australia as a `miracle economy' for nothing. Of course, the best form of income security is a decent job—not the sort of bodgie training schemes that the opposition used to be very keen on, not the welfare handouts, not the substitutes for real work, but work itself. That is why it is very pleasing to the government—but, of course, profoundly unsatisfying to the opposition—that unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in nearly 10 years, as Senator McGauran rightly points out.One of the things we have had to do is tackle that huge, dirty big black hole that Mr Beazley managed to bequeath to us—and that others of course denied for years, but we all know now it had to be tackled in a fair and responsible manner. And of course there are a number of other very important things that need to be done, like getting rid of the unfair dismissal laws, like extending the Work for the Dole scheme and like introducing legislation to remove the entitlement of highly paid seasonal workers to get unemployment benefits.Why are all these sorts of issues supported by Tony Blair in the UK when his most favoured acolyte in Australia, Mr Beazley, is going in precisely the opposite direction? Simply because Mr Blair realises that this is the way to create jobs. He is not beholden to a small fraction of the work force. He is not in a situation where he gets 30 or sometimes 40 per cent of the vote and then abdicates responsibility to probably 10 per cent of the population and their representatives, who of course are a very small and well paid coterie. That is the problem in this country.What I think is critically important to understand—as Senator Kemp pointed out—is that, when people like Bob Hogg actually get away from the trade union movement, the scales fall from their eyes; they understand what unemployment is and how it can be tackled. So what does Bob Hogg say? He says that the first thing that Mr Beazley ought to do on the policy front is declare support for the government's GST and, secondly, he should support the full privatisation of Telstra. He knows why Labor won't. Labor won't because it is not allowed to. That is a tragedy because there are so many things that could be done in this country if there was bipartisan commitment to employment growth and GDP growth.But, no, what do we find in Victoria? The unions said they had had enough of Brumby because he would not deliver the goods, so they knocked him off. Why have they gone for Bracks? Because Bracks has said he will consult with the unions. And what is the unions' agenda? This is what Dean Maghell says:. . . the reasons unions affiliate with the ALP is the wish to have the ability to influence political outcomes in the interests of members . . . In other words, they could not give a damn about the national interest, the wider interest, and even Labor voters. They are interested in the unions' interest. That is why they got nearly $90 million during the 14-year period of the Labor government and why the Labor Party is so much in their debt. But it is not in the national interest; it is profoundly undemocratic and all those initiatives are ones that Mr Beazley ought to confront. We know that getting rid of unfair dismissal laws is the way to ensure that small business is more inclined to take on new employees. Why is Labor opposed to junior wage rates? Of course it is because the unions are terrified that young and enthusiastic workers might actually be a bit more productive than people who are sitting around constantly whingeing about workers' rights. They are really not interested in any mutual obligations. They are not interested in quid pro quos. It is more quid pro me. They are only interested in looking after themselves, not in looking after the business—seeing it grow and create more employment. (Time expired)31293129Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I ask whether the minister recalls that, in answer to my question on Monday regarding the effect of the GST on Tasmania, he said: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.Is the minister aware that the former minister for regional development, Mr Somlyay, has written to the Treasurer expressing serious concern about the effect of the tax reform package on Queensland? Is the minister also aware that, according to Mr Somlyay's local newspaper, the Sunshine Coast Sunday of 21 March, he has pointed out to the Treasurer that he `can find no fault with the State Government's submission on GST funding' prepared by the state Labor Treasurer, Mr Hamill? If the minister's own Liberal colleagues do not have faith in the effect of the tax package on regional areas, why should the Queensland or Tasmanian communities do so?3129Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Faulkner, for the question. Talk about colleagues today—we have mentioned Bob Hogg in question time already. Senator Bob Hogg has lost faith in the Labor Party's opposition to the tax package.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: I am not aware that Mr Bob Hogg has now become a senator. My question related to the former minister for regional development. It was a very specific question, Madam President, and I would ask you to direct the minister to answer the question. It is not about Mr Hogg. He has already answered one question not directed to him about that matter. He has talked about Mr Hogg, let's hear about Mr Somlyay.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, on the point of order: the question revolved around a colleague who had made some comments on the compensation package in Queensland. I am talking about a colleague of Senator Faulkner, Mr Bob Hogg. I point out to you that is entirely in line with the question. This was so obvious a response, and he asked for it and he got it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I would remind you of the thrust of the question from Senator Faulkner. I cannot direct you how to answer it but I would ask you to keep the question in mind.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are far too many interjections in the chamber and it makes it difficult for me to hear and know what is going on. There are senators who were interjecting yesterday who are doing it again today.WW4Senator KEMP—As I was saying, Senator Bob Hogg, a colleague of Senator Faulkner—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Bob Hogg.WW4Senator KEMP—Mr Bob Hogg—the way he's talking at the moment, it would be a good thing if he were actually a senator—a jolly good thing. We would vote for him and you wouldn't, I suspect.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, keep focused on the question please.WW4Senator KEMP—Mr Bob Hogg said on the policy front that Beazley needs to do two things. Firstly, he should declare support for the GST—and that is from a former Labor Party leader. In relation to the other matter that was raised by Senator Faulkner in his question, let me make it clear that state premiers and territory chief ministers have all endorsed a document outlining the principles that will transform Commonwealth-state financial arrangements.All states and territories will benefit from tax reform by gaining access to a robust tax that will allow them to remove nine of their inefficient taxes and give them greater independence from Commonwealth funding. This is why the tax reform, among other things, is good for the states. The transitional funding guarantee ensures the budgetary position of each state and territory will be no worse off in the three years following the introduction of the GST.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is misleading the Senate, and you know it. He did not endorse that. WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I am seeking to answer the question. I am receiving constant abuse from Senator Conroy, who simply cannot keep quiet. I think it would be appropriate if he were to be called to order, Madam President. The Queensland budget and Queensland taxpayers will benefit substantially from the reforms. The information I have shows that in the fourth year the Queensland budget could be at least $400 million better off. This is not disputed by the Queensland Premier, as far as I am aware.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The Assistant Treasurer is misleading the house. The Queensland Premier has said no such thing and has in actual fact totally disputed the point.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—If Senator Conroy wants to get up and have a debate, stay back and we will have a debate. It is quite simple.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You don't stay back!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left will cease shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—When I say `we', I speak broadly of all my colleagues behind me who do such an absolutely splendid job while I am off serving the people. As I said, the Queensland budget and Queensland taxpayers will benefit substantially from the reforms and in the fourth year the Queensland budget could be at least $400 million better off. This is good news for Queensland.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not true.WW4Senator KEMP—It is true, Senator. Madam President, that is one of the many reasons we say this tax reform package should be passed. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons why Bob Hogg wants the tax reform package to be passed, and Bob Hogg is right.3130Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. You would be aware, Madam President, that I asked a question about Mr Somlyay, one of Senator Kemp's Liberal Party colleagues, and the fact that Mr Somlyay bagged the Liberal Party's tax policy. My supplementary question is pretty similar to the one I asked before, and that is simply this: if the minister's own Liberal Party colleagues do not have faith in the effect of the tax package on regional areas, why should people who live in Queensland and Tasmania? How does this minister explain the fact that even Liberal Party members like Mr Somlyay are expressing very serious and grave concerns about the Costello tax package?3130Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Mr Alex Somlyay is a very strong supporter of the tax reform package. What Senator Faulkner is going on about is incomprehensible to me. Senator Faulkner has to explain why his own people are coming apart at the seams on this. Why is it that such a distinguished Labor leader as Mr Bob Hogg has broken ranks from the Labor Party and today called on Mr Beazley to show some leadership and pass the GST?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: you must be aware that Senator Kemp is not answering, or even attempting to answer, the supplementary question that has been directed to him. I would ask you to at least attempt to bring this minister to order and explain what his Liberal mates are up to and what Mr Somlyay is up to in relation to the tax package.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I think if you check the transcript you will find that the minister has referred to Mr Somlyay, although he may have had some other things to add. There is a short time left for him to complete his answer if he has anything further to add to it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on that point of order, I draw your attention to the threatening manner in which that point of order was presented. What we got was basically a metaphorical poking in the face, with your being told that you must be aware of certain things and then being asked whether you would at least attempt to control Senator Kemp. That is a blatant insult to the chair, Madam President. It is typical of the disrespect that is being shown for your authority. I invite you to draw Senator Faulkner's attention to that behaviour every time it occurs.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It will be best if we proceed with question time. Senator Kemp, do you have anything further to add?WW4Senator KEMP—I was planning to sit down but, on the basis of the point of order from Senator Faulkner, I will continue. Senator Faulkner has to explain why a Labor Party leader has broken ranks today and called on Mr Beazley to pass the GST.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, that is well beyond the question that was asked.31313131Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Minister, will you outline the effect to the Australian economy if the $1 billion Sun Metals project in North Queensland is suspended and how that would affect jobs? Does it have implications for the rest of Australia, particularly employment? Is this yet again unionism gone mad?3131Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Parer for the question and for his ongoing interest, as a Queenslander, in this dispute which is of great interest and great despair to all of us in Queensland—it should be to all of us in Australia. It is more in despair than in anger that I again refer to this. To give the Senate some background, for years Townsville Enterprise, the local voluntary group supporting business in Townsville, business and community leaders, the Townsville and Thuringowa councils, Queensland governments and politicians of all parties worked very hard, very often and at great expense to get this investment into North Queensland from a Korean investment house, Korea Zinc. They achieved that after a lot of hard work. As a result of that, we have in North Queensland a project worth over $500 million in stage 1 and $1 billion in stage 2. It will create more than 1,600 new direct and indirect jobs with a wages bill annually of some $84 million.This will lead on, in stage 2, to more billions of dollars of investment. It will lead to a base load power station, the Chevron gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea to southern Queensland, the Comalco refinery in Gladstone, the Western Mining fertiliser project at Phosphate Hill and the George Fisher zinc mine in Mount Isa. All of those, in one way or another, are dependent upon this Korea Zinc project.All of that has been put in jeopardy, and why? It is because of a senseless, stupid, puerile interunion dispute supported by the Labor Party and the people opposite. It is part of an Australia-wide campaign by the CFMEU to take over from the AWU. That is what it is all about. As Senator Parer has said, this is unionism gone mad. To quote a Townsville identity, it is an industrial dispute without an issue. Why do these unions, which were ordered back to work last Friday, think that they are above the law? The AWU agreed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission order to return to work. The AWU wanted to go back.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—It's not my union, mate.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I know it is not your union, Senator. But your unions, and the ones you support, refused to abide by the order of the Queensland industrial commission. As I speak, the Queensland Industrial Court is, on its own motion, making efforts to enforce the order of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. For all of us in the north who support this, for the workers, all we ask Mr Beattie and the Labor Party to do is to apply the law of Queensland. Why can't that law of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission be applied to unions? Unfortunately, the Queensland government and Labor politicians opposite just ignore it.There are workers in Townsville that want to go back to work, but they have been subjected to the usual form of union thuggery. They ring up late at night and say, `If you go back to work, remember that your wife and your children will be home alone.' That is the sort of thuggery we are getting in Townsville, along with racial taunts. Because this is an investment by a Korean enterprise, there are racial taunts about eating dogs and so on. It is a disgusting attitude from the Queensland government. All we ask is that Mr Beattie apply the law. (Time expired)31313131Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of the study by Arthur Andersen of the likely effects of the tax package on the Catholic not-for-profit health and aged care sectors? Is he aware that this report finds that the government's proposed tax changes will add $36 million to $56 million to the cost of the sector in the first year and ongoing costs of $5 million? These are additional costs which represent the value of services that will be lost in the Catholic health and aged care sectors under your tax package. Does the Assistant Treasurer dismiss this analysis by Arthur Andersen, in the same way he did yesterday? If so, on what analysis does he rely to refute the study's findings?3132Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As Kylie Minogue said, I could be so lucky! Thank you, Senator Conroy, for that question. If any of my colleagues were thinking of asking me a similar question on Arthur Andersen, could they please focus on some other issue in question time. I have a press release that was faxed to me today by Arthur Andersen. That is why, Senator Conroy, I said, `I could be so lucky.' Arthur Andersen were concerned about some of the comments in this chamber yesterday. They wanted to make sure that there was a fuller perspective given on Arthur Andersen. Can Senator Conroy listen to the answer? Senator Conroy asks me a question and, when I get up to answer the question, he has a chat with the person behind him. This is what Arthur Andersen says about our GST reform package:The GST proposal, together with reforms to the taxation of business in Australia, is welcomed by this Firm as much needed initiatives in the modernisation of our taxation laws.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I raise a point of order as to relevance, Madam President.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I need to able to hear what is said. Senators on my right will cease making so much noise.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—My question was specifically on Arthur Andersen's study to do with aged care and health. Would you ask the minister to address the question that I asked him, not just go off on his own frolic?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. WW4Senator KEMP—I am tempted to say that I was answering the question, but he was turning around talking to a colleague. As I said, I could be so lucky—thank you to Senator Conroy! Arthur Andersen went on to say, and this gives a very different perspective to what Senator Sherry and Senator Conroy said yesterday:Our existing indirect tax system—including Commonwealth wholesale sales tax, State stamp duties and financial taxes and fringe benefits tax—leads to many distortions in business investment and competition in the economy and creates uncertainties and unnecessary compliance burdens for most businesses.Senator Conroy, can you listen to the answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should apply yourself to the question that has been asked of you and ignore interjections.WW4Senator KEMP—Arthur Andersen continued:We are seriously concerned to ensure that our recommendations to the Senate Committee should not be interpreted as criticism or lack of support for the GST. The government's resolve to embark on tax reform is welcomed by this Firm and in our view, is welcomed by business generally.Senator Conroy, you asked me about Arthur Andersen and I have actually said to you what Arthur Andersen has said. I make the point that charities, along with all other sectors of the economy, are going to benefit from tax reform.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about the $56 million—the ongoing cost?WW4Senator KEMP—I for one greatly admire the work of all charities, including the Catholic charities, which do a magnificent job.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about the $56 million?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you will get an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. You should not keep shouting during the answer.WW4Senator KEMP—Let me say that the Catholic charities do an absolutely magnificent job, in my view. (Time expired)3132Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Four minutes and he finally got to the question—to be cut off! What compensation will be offered to the charitable and not-for-profit health and aged care providers for the ongoing costs of the GST? Does the government accept that the service levels in these sectors will have to fall under the tax package?3133Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The services offered by these sectors will not have to fall. These sectors benefit under the tax package. So let me make that as my first point.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I have read to you the Arthur Andersen view on the tax package. As far as the implementation of the GST is concerned, you will be aware there is a $500 million fund which the government will use to assist in the implementation of the GST by small business. Included in that are charities as well.31333133Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer the minister to my question of 1 December last year, in answer to which he said:I can confirm that as far as this government is concerned there have been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company, Pangea Resources.I also refer him to his statement earlier today in this chamber where he admitted misleading the Senate and, in doing so, amended the position to the new one of `absolutely no ministerial level discussions with Pangea, except for Mr Tuckey in November last year'. I ask, Minister: how do you justify your new position? How does it sit with comments by Mr James Voss, President of Pangea Resources, in July last year that he had spoken to the government—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Minchin is entitled to hear this question because he will be called upon to answer it.8U4Senator LEES—at ministerial and bureaucratic levels; that is, three months before Mr Tuckey has admitted to his discussions. So, Minister, are you still misleading the Senate?3133Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I made my statement of 1 December in answer to your question on the basis of the advice given to me at that time—advice received by my office as to any minister that might be relevant to this matter who may have had contact or a meeting with Pangea. I answered that question on the basis of my knowledge at that time. When I learned yesterday that Mr Tuckey had in fact met with Pangea back in November, I drew that to the attention of the Senate as soon as possible. One of the reasons why it was this morning and not last night was that I wanted to make absolutely sure that no other minister in the government had had a meeting with Pangea. That involved my office contacting every other minister's office to ensure that those meetings had not taken place. That advice was finalised last night, and that is why I felt confident this morning in saying that there was no contact other than that between Mr Tuckey and Pangea, which occurred back on 5 November.May I say in response to other issues raised in the discussion of this matter this morning that I received a letter from Mr Tuckey last night on this matter in which he said:At the meeting—with Mr Voss—I indicated to him that:-1. My portfolio responsibilities did not cover this issue;2. That I was not in a position to judge the scientific and technical feasibility of such a proposal; and3. I believed that such a proposal would be unlikely to receive community support.I am not aware of the statement that you have just quoted of Mr Voss. That is news to me, and it contradicts the information I have that no such contact has occurred, apart from that I reported this morning.3133Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The date on the material I have is 24 July 1998, so perhaps you could check with Mr Tuckey again that there was no other meeting. Could I also ask you to explain why, when you made your statement this morning, you circulated the draft and did not make your final comments in line with the draft? There is one particular statement that you deleted. The statement you deleted was:We completely reject Pangea's proposal to build an international waste repository in Australia.Is it because Pangea is already in line to build and run, as a private facility, a low-level radioactive waste facility for Australian wastes as planned by both the Keating and the Howard governments? I ask you to rule this out if it is not the case.3134Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I read to you the letter from me to Mr Voss on 5 March, which I tabled, which says:Regardless of Pangea's views as to the suitability of Australia to host an international nuclear waste repository, the government has no intention of considering Pangea's proposals for such a project.As you well know, we are in the process of determining a site for a domestic low-level waste repository, and that will almost inevitably be a government run repository. I am not aware of any proposal that has been put to me for Pangea to run such a facility. While final decisions have not been made, my expectation is that that would be a government run repository.31343134Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of comments by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants that the government's proposed changes to the investment rules affecting do-it-yourself superannuation funds would `effectively destroy retirement income options for thousands of small businesses in rural and regional Australia'? Can the minister explain why the government is changing the investment rules affecting over 160,000 do-it-yourself superannuation funds when the government's own budget papers do not attribute any savings measures to the changes?3134Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In view of the comments Senator Sherry made in this chamber yesterday about Arthur Andersen, I had rather hoped that he was going to make it very clear how misleading his comments were. The new investment rules have been out for a very long period of time. They were announced in the last budget, and there have been further press statements since then. What we are concerned about is ensuring that money which is provided for retirement incomes is properly used for retirement purposes. We are very supportive of DIY funds; in fact, DIY funds have been one of the growth areas in super. From memory, the average rise in the number of DIY funds each quarter is between 4,000 and 5,000. They are a very attractive option for many people, including many people in small business. I would have hoped that the Labor Party, along with this side of the chamber, would be very concerned to make sure that this growth in superannuation is properly managed.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is why he is asking you the question. Answer the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator, this is precisely what I am doing. I was asked why we brought in the new investment rules. These investment rules have been out for some nine months. We brought them in because we were concerned to make sure that the growth of superannuation—in particular the growth of DIY funds—took place on a sound basis, and we believe that those rules are important to ensure that money is appropriately invested for retirement income purposes.3134Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister may know that they have been out for nine months, but they are not law yet, and small business operators are very concerned about the interim arrangements that you propose. Is the minister aware of the recent statements by the Australian Superannuation Funds Association that `both workers and bosses are increasingly walking away from superannuation'? Given the Howard government's monumental blunders in regard to national retirement savings policy—with the failed savings rebate incentive, the changes to DIY super and the damaging effects of the way the surcharge tax has been applied—has the government given up completely on encouraging a long-term savings culture in this country?3134Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are building a savings culture in this country, in contrast to the Labor Party, which in its term of office effectively set about destroying national savings through running massive public sector deficits. We are giving particular emphasis to superannuation. Superannuation is one of the great growth sectors of the Australian economy. People are not walking away from super. People are putting increasing amounts of money into superannuation and that is why the superannuation industry is enjoying very great growth. I rather hoped that, in the area of superannuation, we might see some bipartisan responsible policy. Senator Sherry, I am afraid your question today shows how little you really understand what is going on in the superannuation industry.31353135Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Can the minister confirm that there have been at least three major incidents at the ANSTO research reactor at Lucas Heights this year, including the dropping of a spent fuel rod and the release into the atmosphere of a large amount of radioactive gas and a large amount of radioactive iodine? If so, can he advise what authorities were alerted to these incidents, and when that was done? Can the minister also advise if workers at ANSTO were alerted to these incidents at the time and if the community in Sutherland Shire were alerted to the release of radioactive gases and iodine? Finally, will ARPANSA be required to table a report on these incidents, including their recommendations for changes in procedure to avoid a repeat of these dangerous incidents?3135Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Margetts for her question and for her early notice of it. I can confirm there were three incidents in operational areas of Lucas Heights during February 1999. None of those incidents were associated with the operation of the reactor itself. One event occurred when a spent fuel element was being transferred from a storage area to an examination area. The other two events occurred during radiopharmaceutical production when gases were released at levels that were higher than routine levels. I am advised that, in all cases, radiation releases did not exceed the permitted levels of emissions. There were no significant personnel exposures and no on-site or off-site health impacts. The appropriate authorities were notified promptly of the incidents, particularly the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the ANSTO Safety Review Committee, as were all relevant staff in the associated areas.In relation to the fuel rod incident, ARPANSA was notified on that day and the ANSTO Safety Review Committee the following day. I have not been able to confirm, in the time available, the exact time of notification of the other two incidents. The initial advice is that it was within 24 hours, but I am endeavouring to find out exactly when that notification occurred and I will make you aware of that as soon as it is available.The incident involving a spent fuel element had no impact outside the building in which it was being handled, and the two events involving small releases did not lead to discharges greater than normal for the month and, as such, did not require any emergency measures or notifications to the local community. However, ANSTO is reviewing its notification arrangements in light of the incidents. All three incidents are being fully investigated by both ANSTO and ARPANSA to determine their root causes and to establish improvements which will help to ensure such incidents do not recur. Once those investigations are concluded, they will be reported to parliament by the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA.3135Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has clearly not included the community in his list of people who were advised. Given these recent incidents, particularly given that the incident involving the spent fuel rod occurred largely as a result of its poor condition, what confidence can we have that there will not be similar incidents when these rods are moved in preparation for their export to France for reprocessing? And given the recent earthquake in the vicinity of Sydney, the epicentre of which was approximately 40 kilometres from the Lucas Heights reactor, can the minister advise if he is confident that the safety of workers and the local community can be safeguarded in the event of repeat earthquakes? Were workers even properly advised of that fuel rod incident, Minister?3136Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I did say in my answer that all staff were notified of the incident. I have every confidence in ANSTO and in the operation at Lucas Heights. They do an outstanding job for Australia. This is one of Australia's great scientific communities, contributing enormously to the country. I have every confidence in the work they are doing. The whole point of an ARPANSA investigation into this incident is to ensure that all safety measures are appropriate and proper and that there is no repeat of this incident.31363136Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Kemp in his capacity as Assistant Treasurer. Is it true that the GST will increase the costs of schoolbooks purchased by parents and students, school uniforms, school camps, excursions and travel to and from school, visiting performers, school lunches, hire of musical instruments and other equipment, Internet services, goods purchased to be resold in fundraising ventures, before and after school care, and school administration? Is it also correct that schools, as you claim, will be quarantined from the cost increases associated with the introduction of the GST?3136Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that question, Senator Carr. I think you have to look at the package overall in a sensible and fair manner. You would see that, as distinct from the sort of impression you are trying to give, costs for the education sector actually fall by some $240 million. The price effect is minus 0.3 per cent. The education sector will benefit from tax reform, because the costs of inputs into that sector will fall. As we estimate, they will fall by some $240 million. The parents of people attending school—and I will take the typical family—will probably benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week. This is part of arguably the largest income tax cut in Australian history. People like Bob Hogg have cut loose from the Labor Party position because they can see that this tax package is of overall benefit. You and the Labor Party are trying not only to stop the fall in costs which the education sector will experience as a result of our package but also to prevent the parents of the children attending these schools getting what, as I said, will arguably be the largest tax cut ever given in Australian history.Senator Carr, we are very proud of our package. Schools will benefit from our package. And let me assure you that the parents of students attending schools will benefit very substantially if only the Labor Party will look to the future, if only the Labor Party will follow the advice it has been given today by Bob Hogg, and make sure this tax package is passed.3136Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, since you claim that there are these additional advantages to schools, will you be able to tell the principals that they are wrong, and if so why, when they say that the additional administrative costs will be between $25,000 and $35,000 per year per school? Will you be able to tell parents who have expressed their concern that under this proposal there will be an additional cost to individual children of $300 per week—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—What?AW5Senator CARR—Up to $300 per year in additional costs for the provision of schooling? Will you be able to assure people that up to half the compensation package you are proposing will not go in additional education costs? If not, Minister, why not?3136Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Did I hear correctly—`$300 per week extra costs'? This is fantasy stuff, Senator Carr. Along with many of your colleagues, you are in fantasy land. Can the Labor Party explain to the parents of students who attend schools why the Labor Party is attempting to prevent them from getting major income tax cuts? A typical family may well get in the order of $40 to $50 per week—per week! That is what the Labor Party is attempting to stop.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You know that's not true.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They don't.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left will cease shouting. You are grossly in breach of the standing orders.31373137Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Newman. The government has significantly increased Commonwealth funding for New South Wales health this year and has extended its commitment in particular to women's health and safety by promising an additional $25 million for domestic violence prevention. Minister, does the Commonwealth government have any input into decisions by the New South Wales government to cut health services to women, including the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre?3137Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is a very good question, because we on this side of the parliament are all concerned about women's health. I just wonder what is happening in New South Wales with the Carr-Refshauge government. I was very worried to hear suggestions on ABC radio that the Commonwealth government was to blame for reducing by one-fifth funding to the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. Senator Patterson heard that too.The truth is anything but: the Commonwealth government has not cut funding to the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. It looks as though this might be simply another pathetic, shameful example of the Carr government in New South Wales being prepared to shift the blame elsewhere when it is really that government whose commitment to services for vulnerable women—including, very importantly, those who live in rural areas where support is so hard to come by—is pretty shaky. In fact, the situation is contrary to what the New South Wales government would have the public and the community organisations believe. Commonwealth funding for health has in fact increased by more than 10 per cent this year. That is the largest monetary injection to New South Wales health by the Commonwealth ever.Commonwealth funding for health services to the states and territories is now delivered through the public health outcome funding agreements, which are bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and each state and territory—and that includes the National Women's Health Program. Under that program, the states and territories are required to continue their commitment to implement national strategies, such as the National Women's Health Program, although the state government—in this case the New South Wales Carr-Refshauge government—will be determining how the resources will be deployed. But there has been no reduction whatsoever in the levels of aggregate funding provided through the public health outcome funding agreements with New South Wales to cover these programs. People will say anything to get back into government in New South Wales!If funding is cut to the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre, it is the decision of Mr Carr and Dr Refshauge and the rest of their mates in the New South Wales government. Their rhetoric on services to the most of vulnerable women in the New South Wales community does not seem to be backed by their decisions behind the scenes. The truth must out: the Commonwealth has not cut their money; it has increased their money.31373137Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I ask whether the minister is aware that a short time ago Mr Tuckey informed the House of Representatives that:When Senator Minchin made the remarks he did, I was obliged immediately to tell him that he had made an error inadvertently, and I stand by that.They are Mr Tuckey's words in the House. I ask the minister how those particular words stand, given that he advised the Senate this morning:My office was advised yesterday by the office of Mr Tuckey that he met with Mr James Voss of Pangea Resources on 5 November 1998.I simply ask: who is right? Did Mr Tuckey immediately inform Senator Minchin, as he indicated to the House, or were you right in your statement to the Senate this morning?3137Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am at a disadvantage, not having heard or seen what Mr Tuckey said, but I have no doubt that Mr Tuckey's answer would have been entirely consistent with what I said to the Senate this morning and in my further answer. I received a letter from Wilson Tuckey dated 23 March—that is, yesterday—saying:It has come to attention that on 1 December 1998 you informed the Senate . . .At the time you made that statement you could not have been aware that my office had granted a request for an interview to an American industrialist.That letter forms the first and only notice to me of the fact that Mr Tuckey had met with a representative of Pangea. I came straight into the Senate, as soon as I could, to report that. I am sure there is no inconsistency.3138Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, Mr Tuckey informed the House of Representatives, and I used his words, that:When Senator Minchin made the remarks he did, I was obliged immediately to tell him he had made an error inadvertently, and I stand by that.Minister, either you or Mr Tuckey must be misleading the parliament. Who is right? Did Mr Tuckey advise immediately or are you right that you were only advised yesterday by the office of Mr Tuckey that he had met with Mr James Voss?VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Faulkner is implying by accusation that Senator Minchin has misled the Senate. Senator Faulkner did not hear what Mr Tuckey said in the other chamber this afternoon. He is making the accusation based on a false premise and I would ask him to withdraw the accusation. I listened to what Mr Tuckey said in the other chamber. Senator Faulkner is relying on somebody else, because he did not listen to what Mr Tuckey said. He has based his question on a false premise.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order, which I believe is not a point of order and ought to be ruled out of order by you, I have been provided with a transcript of the words Mr Tuckey used in the House of Representatives. I am depending on that transcript and it is on the basis of the transcript that I put what I believe is a proper and very serious question to the Minister.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.3138Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I did not hear what Mr Tuckey said and I am not going to give an answer based on the hearsay of Senator Faulkner. He may have heard him or he may have seen a transcript but I do not know whether that transcript is correct. I am not going to respond to an accusation based on what is, at this stage, hearsay. I will have a look at what Mr Tuckey has said. All I can say is that I was told yesterday, in a letter from Mr Tuckey, that he had met with Mr Voss in November.31383138Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, my question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to his ongoing defiance of the Senate's order on Jabiluka and to the letter the minister sent me last night.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Isn't this matter already on the Notice Paper ?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am not aware of a bill on this particular topic.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—There is something in relation to this very matter.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That does not prevent her asking a question on that topic.1M6Senator ALLISON—The letter the minister sent me last night claims that he had clearly outlined the documents tabled, which he called `key' documents, and those withheld. I have looked through the lists again and I ask: why are there no documents from key public servants? I will list some of those: Kevin Keefe, Stephen Hunter, Bill Campbell, Elizabeth Williams, Gillian Bird, David Aitkenson, Arthur Johnson, Peter Vaughan, David Collen and Kaely Woods. I ask the minister: is it not the case that all of these staff provided written information which would have been on his department's files? Why have these key documents not been tabled? When is the minister going to let the Senate decide what are key documents and what are not?3138Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If the honourable senator has received a series of leaked documents, I do not know why she wants copies from me. The department gave me advice on what they regarded as key documents. I tabled those that I thought it was proper to table. With regard to those I have not tabled, I gave reasons as to why I did not believe it was proper to table them.3139Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it not the case that there is also a stack of other documents missing too? Is it not the case that all of the documents relating to the numerous consultants that have been engaged on Jabiluka—for example, Professor Dudgeon, Dr Wang, Dr Chew, Dr Pittock, Dr Jones, Bruce Stewart, Dr Sri Kanthan, Brian Taylor and Dr Watson—are key documents? Where are these documents?3139Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Before the time for tabling we contacted the honourable senator's office and asked if she would be helpful and refine the list that she might be seeking in order that we might be helpful in response. The answer that we got was that they were not so interested.CX5MACDONALDSenator Sandy Macdonald—Madam President, my question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. The minister would be aware of national statistics from Crime Stoppers Australia that show disturbing differences in arrests and charging—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Wasn't the call to our side? I know arrangements were made to ask a New South Wales question of Senator Vanstone to get the last add-in, but doesn't the call normally go to our side?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—No-one jumped.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—They did so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Lundy31393139Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware of claims that government grants to sporting organisations will be subject to the GST in certain circumstances? Can you explain exactly in what circumstances the GST will apply to government grants to organisations such as Little Athletics? Is it not the case that all government grants which are deemed to be considered for the supply of a specific service, such as assistance with the venue and equipment hire costs for the under-sevens, be subject to the 10 per cent GST? What about general financial assistance grants to maintain a local kids soccer club? Will these also be subject to the 10 per cent GST?3139Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Regarding the local soccer club, was the soccer club registered or not?3139Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Given that the minister has chosen to ignore all of the pertinent points of the question, will this government increase grants to sporting organisations that will invariably suffer from a reduction in real funding if grants are subject to the GST? For instance, doesn't the GST mean that a $1,000 grant will be reduced to a little over $900 in the hands of a local sporting organisation? Won't that grant buy even less when the higher costs of sports uniforms and access to facilities and services like phone and electricity are taken into account? And, Minister, I note the contempt with which you treat sporting organisations.3139Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would say to the senator: you accept questions but they are not complete. If you ask me a question it is important from time to time to know certain information—for instance, in the case of the way this question is worded, whether the organisation is registered or not. You could not even respond to that, could you? That is the problem when questions are accepted that have been written by Senator Cook. They are simply not complete, they are poorly worded and they leave people like you asking questions which are simply not accurate. We believe that sport, along with all other sectors of the Australian economy, will certainly benefit from the government's tax reform package. Thank you for the question, Senator.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions Without Notice3140314015:08:003140Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) in response to questions without notice asked by Senator Cook, Senator Carr and Senator Lundy today relating to the proposed new tax system.My question to Senator Kemp today about the GST went to—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Madam Deputy President, could I take a point of order? Yesterday afternoon when a motion was moved to take note of answers, you stipulated that in fact the motion could take note only of one particular answer to a minister. In this case Senator Cook said he wants to take note of all of the answers en masse. Why is it correct for him to do it today if it was not possible yesterday for others to speak on those matters?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Ferguson, for the very simple fact that yesterday Senator Forshaw moved to take note only of one particular answer. Senator Cook is moving to take note of three answers today.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—My question to Senator Kemp today concerned evidence given by the Insurance Council of Australia to the Senate inquiry into the GST. The Insurance Council of Australia is a body that represents Australian insurance companies. It gave evidence to the inquiry that the transitional cost of the introduction of a GST into the Australian taxation system for insurance companies in Australia adds up to $2.5 billion. It said that it had made representations to the Australian government—in particular to Mr Costello, the Treasurer—seeking relief from that $2.5 billion cost that would go to it.The council said further that if the government would not grant that relief they would pass on $2.5 billion in extra charges to their policyholders, which is to say that Australians who take out insurance will pay in total $2.5 billion more than they now have to pay in order to meet their insurance premiums. That was the evidence given to the Senate committee inquiring into the GST.They said further that this was an unintended consequence, that the government had not allowed for this, that the government had made a mistake and that was what caused these charges to arise. They said that because the government was not counting on the extra $2.5 billion—although they would levy it—the government should wipe the slate clean and therefore not interfere with the tax concessions that it was going to give—simply wipe it off. They said that they had not received an answer from the Treasurer about this. Today, my question to the Assistant Treasurer gained no answer either. All he said was that there will be further consultations. What we have now is a chorus from the government about ongoing consultations while major flaws in this GST package have been brought to light and remain unanswered and dangle over this Senate as questions to be resolved in time for our debate on these bills when they come forward.We are witnessing the age-old practice of a government keeping major organisations on the line by consultations which never reach a conclusion in order to ambush them at the last minute and ram through the legislation. That is what we are witnessing. Australians are not compensated for this extra cost in the compensation package that the government has announced. This extra cost of $2.5 billion would make Australians poorer, not richer, because the compensation package is not there.This question requires an answer immediately because, as I say, the costs to be borne by ordinary Australians will make them poorer under a GST than they ordinarily would be. The evidence that we have is that most Australians, economically and financially, in doing their household budgets will be worse off—not better off, worse off. This will make them even more worse off.Another respected independent body, the Institute of Taxation, is comprised of experts who compile tax returns around Australia. What do they say to us? They say, `We don't take a view about the desirability or not of this tax. We are tax experts. We will say whether the law as proposed by the government will work or won't work. Bringing our expertise to look at the 16 bills that encode this law, we say if the government wants a GST it should defer the debate for six to 12 months because, when looking at the detail of the legislation, we see there are lots of devils in that detail.'When you look at the fine print you discover problems that have not been examined or understood by the government that will create impositions on ordinary people and small business and make the law administratively impossible. This is not a group that takes a partisan view in this debate, but an expert group that says, `Does the law work or not?' What is the answer from the government to them? We have not heard it—we are still waiting. And we will not hear it. (Time expired)15:13:003141Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—It is quite interesting that the Labor Party, when it discusses the tax reform package, continues to focus totally on the GST and the impact it says it will have on various sectors of the community and business at large. The opposition has chosen, as I said, to focus narrowly on the GST and it has chosen to forget—or on purpose it is denying to acknowledge—that there is a much wider tax plan. It is denying and trying to hide that this is not just the introduction of a new tax but rather the reform of a ramshackle tax system it created during 13 years in office.I would suggest that the opposition have forgotten this fact and are remaining quiet on it—as with other aspects of the tax reform—because, unlike their former leaders, they do not want to acknowledge their mistakes of the past. I could go to a number of quotations back in 1985 of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating—if we can believe what he said—when he went on ad infinitum about the importance of reforming the taxation system. But he did nothing about it.Bob Hawke at the same time went on and on about a consumption tax. He said that it would force the rich to pay their share and that if we did not have a consumption tax the poor would be hit the hardest. They were the catchcries of the Labor Party in 1985. They did not have the gall or the internal fortitude to actually do something about it.Let me review some of the reform measures that will be introduced in order to clear away the remains of Labor's decrepit taxation system. Wholesale sales tax is the main area in which Labor continued to place their faith while in government. Obviously, that is the only policy they have got now. They have not put up an alternative. So what they are proposing and supporting is a ramshackle wholesale sales tax system. Despite continually promising to reform it, they never, ever reformed it. Wholesale sales tax increased and increased; in fact, it went up by 10 per cent during the period from the financial year 1987-88 to the end of the financial year when they left office.The system is now so complex that wholesale sales tax rates differ between 22 per cent and 45 per cent, with no less than six different rates. It is crazy. How can you justify a system that has wholesale sales tax on toothpaste and not on toothbrushes and—this is the example I give again and again in this chamber—wholesale sales tax on strawberry Quik and not on chocolate Quik? It is a ramshackle, out-of-date system.It is also a system in which rates have been surreptitiously put up. In 1993, there were significant increases in wholesale sales tax, with not one cent of compensation for anybody. For the people whom they are now claiming that they want to represent and support, there was not one cent of compensation when that wholesale sales tax was put up by stealth.Taxation reform is needed to help provide jobs, stimulate business growth, cut red tape surrounding tax legislation and prevent loopholes from appearing and being used. The reforms that we are putting in place, if we do not have obstruction from the opposition parties in this chamber, are reforms of the whole taxation system. They include remov ing the disincentives for low and middle income people to work and save. We are reducing personal income tax rates, reforming and simplifying income support payments, providing extra assistance to social security recipients and ensuring that the impact of tax reform does not disadvantage pensioners, the unemployed, low income families and so on.What we have now is a system—which, obviously, the Labor Party wants to support—which provides that when low income earners go over a certain income level, they lose significant parts of their welfare benefits or family allowances. It means there is no incentive for them to get a pay increase or to work overtime. That is the poor interaction we have now between the income tax system and the social security system. We are reforming that.This is a total package. Australians should not be fooled into thinking it is just about the GST. It is about reducing income taxes to a level unheard of in Australia and making sure that we have a tax base that will provide sufficient money to the states and ensure that we have welfare and health systems that can provide support into the next millennium for the young people who are currently growing up.That is what we are putting in place—a taxation system which is sustainable. Labor has no policy. Labor is clinging to a taxation system which is ramshackle, out of date and cannot be supported into the future. This will mean that we will not have a health system or a social security system underpinned by increasing revenue to the government to be able to support those—(Time expired)15:18:003142Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Today we have heard yet again a series of bland assurances from a government that clearly does not appreciate the damage that it is doing to the Australian community by this ill-considered tax proposal which will wreak havoc on many sectors of the Australian economy.It will wreak havoc particularly on the education industries. We are told that education will be essentially GST free. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are told that Australians will be some $40 to $50 a week better off as a result of this package. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are told that there will be a $240 million saving to the education industries as a result of this government's actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.When we look at the detail of the legislation, no specific assurances match up with specific proposals within the bill. There are bland assumptions made by members of the government as to the impact of this proposal. When you look at the detail, you see that those assumptions are not borne out by the facts.What we see, for instance, when we look at the information provided to us by the education department, is that, in regard to the estimate of the additional cost to parents as a result of this tax proposal, and including the government's proposals for reductions in income tax and the alleged increases in family assistance and other compensatory measures, parents will be much worse off. The government, of course, does not have any information—no empirical information—to back up its claims that they will be better off.The department has acknowledged that it has not undertaken any modelling or detailed study of the impact of these proposals on average families with children at school or involved in other educational institutions. For instance, in regard to studies of fundraising for schools, no specific information has been gathered by the government to indicate the impact it is likely to have on the annual turnover of school fundraising activities.The government has not undertaken any detailed study of the effect of the compliance costs that will be involved and the additional administration costs for schools. So when the principals told the parliament, through the Senate committee, that up to one additional person would be required in every school to meet the compliance requirements of the government's legislation, and that that was likely to come out of the teaching budgets of every school across the country, we did not hear anything from the government to refute that, because they cannot refute it. They simply know that they do not have any studies, any advice, to contradict the princi pals who, on a day by day basis, take responsibility for running schools in this country.When the principals tell us that the additional costs will be up to $35,000 per year for an average high school in the state of Victoria—or any other state, for that matter—we are told that the government cannot reassure people about the details of this proposal. What we are told is that there is $500 million available—the great magic pudding—and that all the businesses in this country, all of those tens of thousands of small businesses, the 84 TAFE colleges, the several thousand schools and the 38 universities can rely on this magic $500 million. It amounts to a couple of hundred dollars per applicant, should everyone seek to apply for it. We know that the administrative costs will be much higher than that. We know that there will be a dramatic impact on the administration of our education system, the parents and students involved in the education system and the institutions as a whole.We are told that they will be $40 to $50 a week better off under this arrangement. When you ask for details, as I have done, about the way in which this figure is calculated—since the government constantly spruiks this figure—we cannot get the answer because the government has no answers. We are told that $240 million will be saved by the education industry. How is this figure derived? What assumptions are made by the government in preparing this figure? Again we are told that the answers are not available.These are questions that have been put to departmental officials and questions that are on notice. These are matters that we expect answers on. We expect to know precisely what assumptions the government uses as the basis for its claim. We expect to know what assumptions underlie the cost savings that are allegedly to be passed on. To what extent? What protection will there be that any reductions in any taxes will in fact be passed on to consumers? We do not get any answers on that front. We have to work on one simple assumption. Most of the education industry today is tax free. (Time expired)15:23:003143Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Labor's miserable scare campaign on the government's tax reform package and the goods and services tax has failed dismally. That is very clear and that is why we now see them embarking on another scare campaign in regard to the administrative detail and the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the GST. Their campaign on the overall principles and policy has failed, so now we see them diverting to a new scare campaign regarding the administrative detail and the transitional arrangements. This scare campaign is equally doomed to failure as was their campaign with regard to the overall issue of tax reform because Australians know only too well that our current tax system and structure is broken. Australians know only too well that we urgently need tax reform. Australians know very well that the goods and services tax offers a fair, simple and efficient indirect tax system. They know that it removes the complexities and the inconsistencies of our current wholesale sales tax structure. On that basis, this new scare campaign that Labor has embarked upon falls absolutely flat.The case for the government's tax reform package is overwhelming. That is why none other than Bob Hogg supports the package. Let us remember that Bob Hob—Senator Calvert interjecting—FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Hogs have been in the news lately, so we might get a bit tongue tied about them. Here I am talking about Bob Hogg and not piggeries. Bob Hogg is no junior insignificant member of the Labor Party. Bob Hogg is the former National Secretary of the Labor Party. He was the senior campaign strategist for the Labor Party in the 1980s and the 1990s—a man who is highly regarded and highly respected in the Labor Party.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Is that all you can do—talk about Bob Hogg?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—What has Bob Hogg done? He has called upon the Labor Party to support the government's tax package. It is clear from what we have heard from Senator Cook, Senator Carr and Senator Lundy—with her question that she did not even know the details of and her interjection a few moments ago—that Bob Hogg's call is falling on deaf ears as far as the other side of the chamber is concerned. Of course it is no wonder that, on this issue, the Labor Party is becoming an embarrassment to itself and an embarrassment to this chamber. Today we had question after question on the goods and services tax. The questions were completely ill-informed and the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, had absolutely no difficulty in knocking them down one after the other as they were put forward because they were based on false premises and misinformation. In fact, they were informed by Labor's determination to conduct this unjustified scare campaign.We heard questions asked about the insurance industry, about education, about Queensland and about sporting groups. None of them was based on facts. And now in this debate following question time Senator Cook has the gall to criticise the government for engaging in consultation with various groups in the community about the details of the implementation of the package. Well he might criticise the government for consultation—it was something the Labor Party never engaged in when they were introducing change. Never did they consult with groups and organisations of significance in the community that were going to be affected. Their legislation was introduced time and time again without any consultation whatsoever. That is in marked contrast to this government, which has developed a fine reputation in the community for its consultation with interest groups and community groups that are going to be affected by legislative change.The case for tax reform is clear; the need for tax reform is evident. It is evident when you look at our income tax structure, as I remarked a couple of days ago in another of these debates. We have an income tax structure which is grossly unfair to people on all income levels and which has resulted in an unfair burden of the overall tax take being moved to income tax. We have an indirect tax structure that was designed in the 1930s and based on consumption patterns of the 1930s and not of the 1990s or the 21st century. It taxes goods only and not services, which are now a significant element of people's consumption. So there is clearly a desperate need for tax reform. There is a need for low income tax rates to be considered. (Time expired)15:28:003144Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Isn't it interesting that all Senator Chapman can find to talk about is Bob Hogg. What we are really talking about here is the devastating impact of the government's GST package. With reference to the question I asked earlier in question time, it is patently clear that Minister Kemp was not only not prepared to answer the very specific questions about the status of grants that provide services to sporting organisations, he was incapable of even providing some form of description as to where the government was heading with that issue.This issue is indicative of the challenge that has been presented to the Australian community by this government. How on earth is the community going to decipher the complex administrative arrangements that the GST brings with it? This is part of the problem. This is the reason we have heard so many community groups, sporting groups, volunteer organisations and not-for-profit organisations come before the Senate inquiry over the last few months and state their case very plainly that the GST is going to unfairly shackle them with increased costs in ways that will mean that they will not be able to glean any benefit from any compensation package.With respect to sport, there is absolutely a very clear and concise case against the GST. We know through evidence from New Zealand that in fact the level of voluntaryism in sporting organisations drops by about half, because the GST imposes an extraordinarily unfair administrative burden and liability upon those people who take their own time to participate actively in the aspirations of their sporting club—usually the sporting club that their own children are involved in. We also know that, as a result of the introduction of the GST, every family with a child involved in a sporting club is likely to suffer a cost imposition—for example, an increase in costs of around $90 per annum for a child playing soccer—as a result of the GST being imple mented. That is not a cost that can be adequately compensated for by the esoteric claims by Senator Patterson and others that somehow the government's compensation package will deal with all of these unfair impositions.There are two levels of negative impact of the GST with respect to the community. One is the hip pocket of the families themselves. The cost impositions through sporting expenses, for example, will not be dealt with adequately through a compensation package. The second level—and this is where the government has completely misled the Australian community—is where the organisational groups, the community structures, will be at such a significant disadvantage under the GST that it will actually start to undermine our social fabric to the point where voluntaryism will be affected and these organisations will find it very difficult to survive.In Adelaide, as part of the GST inquiry, we heard from arts organisations that the first thing to go under the GST will in fact be extra activities such as taking arts performances to schools and to nursing homes. It is that kind of value added special service provided by community based, not-for-profit organisations that is an added benefit for the community that is almost impossible to quantify. How do you quantify that in raw dollar terms on the books? The problem is that you cannot. This is part of the unquantified price that Australians will pay if the GST comes into force.The last point I want to make goes back to contempt by the minister. Today in question time we heard his responses to a series of detailed and specific questions presented to him by the opposition about the operation of the GST. There are claims that have been unanswered about the status of grants to organisations where services are involved. Until the government answers these very specific questions, the Australian community will go on being uncertain about the future and being very concerned and afraid that in fact their future is at risk if the GST comes into force.15:33:003145Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I might tell Senator Lundy that the government has answered most of the significant questions that have arisen as a result of this new tax system. The detail of it will be debated in this chamber, but what we must not lose sight of is that the government has introduced a tax that is fair to all Australians. It is a user-pays tax. You cannot describe the wholesale sales tax system in such terms. You cannot tell me what taxes are on specific subjects in any detail. Yes, you can tell me some of these things, but you cannot tell me that you are not going to put up the wholesale sales tax if you get back into power again. What we do know is that you cannot be allowed to put your fingers in the till again. Right from the Whitlam years through to the Hawke years and the Keating years, you have had your fingers in the till and you cannot manage money. You simply cannot manage it.But let me get onto the subject matter. It is not good enough to say that Senator Chapman spoke about Mr Bob Hogg and to dismiss that as if it were not important. What is important about Mr Bob Hogg? He is the former ALP National Secretary. He is the one who was given credit for the 1983 election win by Mr Hawke. He is the one who has been given credit for the 1990 win and again for the 1993 electoral win. Again, he is not just an insignificant member of the Labor Party. He was the intellectual brain behind the very success of those elections that I just mentioned.This is what Mr Hogg said, if it is quoted correctly in today's edition of the Age. It said that Mr Hogg has also urged the opposition leader, Mr Kim Beazley, `to break the cycle of organisational venality and stupidity of the ALP in South Australia and Victoria'—and he is talking about the GST. He is saying break the cycle of stupidity and let us get back to some decency and honesty. What the GST does is to bring decency and honesty and user pays to the tax system. We have never denied that people are not going to say, `I want to pay tax. I want to pay a tax of any kind. I want to pay a GST.' We have never denied that. No-one likes paying tax. But what this does, and the fairness that it promotes before the Australian people, is bring in a user-pays system.What would have happened if you people had won the election last October? You would have introduced a capital gains tax going right back from 1985, backwards as far as you could go, to the point where if you inherited an heirloom from your great-aunt you would have had to get that valued and pay tax on it. We are not saying anything about that with respect to our GST. We are saying that we are going to lift the tax threshold for people who pay tax—from $6,800 to $7,500. We are actually going to lift the threshold. Where have you said that you were going to lift the tax threshold for low income earners?We have also said that we are going to fund people who will suffer from the GST. We have never pretended that some people are not going to suffer from the GST, but they are going to be compensated for that suffering. We have said that we are going to compensate those people—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—At least be consistent with your party's rhetoric.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I did actually hear you in silence, Senator Lundy. What you are saying is incomprehensible to me. If I could quote—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, would you like to address the chair, please, and ignore the—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Yes, Madam Deputy President. I may say that Senator Lundy is being venal and stupid, and she should change—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, I would like you to withdraw that reflection upon another member of this place please.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I will withdraw, Madam Deputy President, and say that Senator Lundy is part of the organisational venality and stupidity of the ALP.I will continue with respect to the insurance. We spoke about insurance today but we also said that the GST is still the subject of a Senate inquiry. We had all sorts of accusations about the $2.5 billion extra that people that took out insurance would pay. No mention was made of the fact that a GST is going to make, for instance, motor vehicles cheaper and therefore their insurance would be cheaper. You did not mention that. What we have said is that the Treasury have absolutely funded and taken down into detail precisely what would—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.314610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:3146158TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:(1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 158 citizens)3146207TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The Petition of the Undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to permit the mining and export of uranium in Australia.1. 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 BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 207 citizens)314635DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 35 citizens)3147168TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong, comprehensive, independent and publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC' [at pre-1996 levels].(2) The Senate votes to maintain and strengthen the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 168 citizens)314788TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 88 citizens)314780DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes uranium mining.Uranium mining is the first step towards Nuclear Weapons: 200,000 humans died in Hiroshima. A `modern' nuclear bomb can kill millions. A global nuclear war could end life on earth. Nuclear Accidents: The tragic meltdown of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl may cost 40,000 to 1,000,000 human lives over the next forty years. A complete release of the reactor's radioactivity would have been 200-400 times worse. Nuclear Waste: The radioactive waste from uranium mining (the `tailings') will contaminate the biosphere forever. These tailings are many millions of times more dangerous than the original ore, mainly because of the fine milling of the ore. They are being produced in vast quantities in Australia—14,000 tonnes each day. These tailings are estimated to cost billions of lives in the future, the lives of our future generations.Respect for the dignity of human life demands the banning of uranium mining urgently. Only recently, the banning of apartheid, asbestos mining and landmines have been largely achieved. Please support the campaign for a nuclear free future.Your petitioners ask that the Senate promote a nuclear free future.Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 80 citizens)Petitions received.Notices31473147Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 30 March 1999, from 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry.Senator Hill to move, on the next day of sitting:That the provisions of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 April 1999.3147Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) recognises that statistics show that in the State of New South Wales, currently under the Australian Labor Party Government of Premier Carr, rates of crime are worse than in any other state in Australia;(b) notes that: (i) statistics from the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology reveal that in New South Wales assaults have risen by 44 per cent in the period that they have risen by 2.8 per cent in Victoria, (ii) the armed robbery rate per 100 000 of population is 79.3 in New South Wales and that this is equivalent to triple the rate in Victoria, and (iii) the rate of unarmed robbery in New South Wales is 4.3 times higher than that of Victoria and that it has grown by 97 per cent since Premier Carr came to power, whilst the unarmed robbery rate in Victoria grew by only 35 per cent in the same period;(c) further notes the 105 per cent increase in armed robbery in New South Wales since Premier Carr came to power, compared to a 15 per cent increase in Victoria in the same period;(d) recognises that Premier Carr acknowledges the link between drugs and crime, but that New South Wales police still managed to arrest only 685 heroin dealers in 1997-98, whereas the police force in Victoria arrested 1 901 heroin dealers in the same year; and(e) acknowledges the incompetence of the Carr Government in a state which has 33 per cent of the population, attracts over 60 per cent of the nation's heroin, is populated with nearly half of the nation's dependent drug users, accounts for half of the national death toll from drug overdoses and has only arrested, in real terms, one-third as many heroin dealers as the Victorian police force.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, that is a very long notice of motion and I think it is very close to being out of order as well. I will in fact be asking the President to review the order of that notice of motion.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Madam Deputy President, I would like to know on what grounds you would rule that out.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I would suggest you read standing order 76, and I will refer it to the President for her assessment.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I would suggest you read it—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, would you please withdraw that reflection upon the chair.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I do not believe, Madam Deputy President, it was a reflection on the chair. I just suggested you read it more carefully. This is a matter of drugs. It is a state and federal issue.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, I have said I will refer this to the President to review under section 76 of the standing orders. That is my judgment and I do not appreciate the comment that you made. I do regard that as a reflection on the chair. I take it that you have withdrawn it.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Yes.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.Senator Chris Evans to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the failure of the aged care reforms of the Commonwealth Government to: (i) provide adequate capital funding for the aged care sector, (ii) equitably provide access to high quality residential and community-based aged care to older Australians, (iii) protect the viability of aged care facilities in rural and remote regions, and (iv) address the wage disparity for nursing staff that exists between the acute and aged care sectors;(b) notes the failure of the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Dr Wooldridge) to resolve the: (i) setting of accreditation fees for the Standards and Accreditation Agency, (ii) provision of growth funding for home and community care services to New South Wales, (iii) finalisation and release of the new certification instrument, (iv) numerous anomalies and problems that residents and providers are encountering under the Aged Care Act 1997 , (v) release of the initial report of the 2-year review of the Government's aged care reforms, and (vi) release of the report of the Productivity Commission into nursing home funding, handed to the Government 70 days ago; and(c) calls on the Minister to enter meaningful dialogue with all sectors of the aged care industry to address concerns about the quality of aged care received by older Australians.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That general business order of the day no. 27, relating to the Restitution of Property to King Island Dairy Products Pty Ltd Bill 1996 [1998], be discharged from the Notice Paper .Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to provide for the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ABC, and for related purposes.Committees3149314931493149Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the fourth report of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 4 OF 19991. The Committee met on 23 March 1999.2. The Committee resolved to recommend—(a) That the provisions of the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateHealth Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs30 April 1999(b) That the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateClassification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional29 March 1999Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional29 March 1999Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts27 April 1999(c) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 23 March 1999). Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999. Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999. Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair24 March 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration. whether PHIAC should be established as a stand alone regulatory authority. The most appropriate prudential standards apply Possible submission or evidence from:consumer groups, APRA, private health industryCommittee to which bill is referred:Community Affairs Legislation Committee or Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s) : 1 April 1999 (?) or later in AprilPossible reporting date : 30 April 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bills:Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationAdvised by a range of industry participants that there has been no consultation:(a) before the announcement of the contents of these Bills(b) during the Ernst and Young report into the substance of these Bills.Many industry groups have major concerns about elements of these Bills and believe that a Committee hearing would allow an opportunity to expand on their concerns to all political parties. The evidence would provide a comprehensive information source to be able to move forward with the Bill.Possible submission or evidence from:1. MMPA—Mature Magazine Publishers Association2. AFC—Australian Film Commission3. SPA—Screen Writers and Producers Association4. Lumiere Theatre5. AIDA6. Becker Entertainment7. Ronin Films8. Australian Film Institute9. Cinema Action Group10. Australian Free Speech Association—Terry Lane 11. Eros12. Australian Council of Film Societies13. Federation of Victorian Film Society14. Hobart Film Society15. Melbourne Film and Video Makers16. South Australian Amateur Movie Makers Inc17. Melbourne International Film Festival18. Melbourne Queer Film and Video Film Festival19. Poison Apple Productions—Anna Brownfield20. Phillip Adams21. Cinema Owners Association22. National Film and Sound Archives23. Motion Picture Distributors Association of AustraliaFurther information as to details of these organisations and individuals will be forthcoming on Monday 22 March.Committee to which bill is referred:Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s) : 26 March 1999Possible reporting date : 29 March 1999signedD. MargettsWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 3Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationIt appears that the bill has important transitional and other considerationsPossible submission or evidence from:Committee to which bill is referred:Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s) :Possible reporting date : 24 May 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member Notices31513151Motion (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), no. 148 (racial discrimination) and no. 151 (certain proposals of the proposed new tax system) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 150 standing in his name for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Newman), be postponed till 31 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 154 standing in his name for today, relating to the use of plantation-grown or recycled timber products for building purposes, be postponed till 30 March 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 155 standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for today, relating to native title legislation, be postponed till 30 March 1999.Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to the disallowance of the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous3151315115:46:003151Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, I move:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lees moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion of censure of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, relating to an order for the production of documents.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I would be pleased to take the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.3152Motion (by Senator Allison, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That a motion to censure the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) relating to an order for the production of documents may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.315215:48:003152Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move:That the Senate censures the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for his refusal to comply fully with the order of 18 February 1999 for the production of documents relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine.I do not move this censure motion on the minister lightly. I have explored many other avenues before coming to this point, but at some time the parliament must make the government accountable.On 18 February this year, the parliament passed an order for the production of all documents relating to the Jabiluka mine since 1 October last year. There were good reasons honourable senators passed those orders and considering the massive amount of decision making in the number of portfolio areas this government does on a daily basis, orders for the production of documents are used very sparingly in this parliament. They are not done for the sake of it or just simply to bother the minister or to bother public servants. They are done so that there is adequate scrutiny of the executive by the parliament. They are a way of keeping the government honest and making them accountable to that parliament.On 8 March, the due date, Senator Hill duly delivered a swag of some 44 documents to the parliament with a tabling statement. That tabling statement is an interesting one. The first sentence starts: `The attached documents constitute the key documents held by or generated by Environment Australia.' Note the words `key documents'. The Senate order was about all documents and the minister and officials in the department have made arbitrary political decisions to conceal documents from scrutiny by the parliament.I believe the Democrats have been very reasonable and mindful of Senate time over this. We have written to the minister asking for a list of those documents which were excluded or withheld and the minister responded with a short list that we believe does not cover anywhere near the documents which are missing. Most obviously missing are records of the interdepartmental committee which was set up to deal with this issue. There are no emails. There is no legal advice. There are no drafts of the report of the minister's department which was supposedly being prepared to sway the UNESCO committee with the minister's version of the truth and the facts, and no details of the $1 million of taxpayer funds that the minister is spending defending his decision on Jabiluka.I have looked again through the lists from the minister and asked why there are no file documents from key public servants. Today my question to the minister went to this point. We know that Kevin Keefe, Jadranka McAlpine, Stephen Hunter, Bill Campbell, Elizabeth Williams, Gillian Bird, David Aitkenson, Arthur Johnson, Peter Vaughan, David Collen and Kaely Woods, who are all public servants, have provided written information which would be on Environment Australia's files.He chose not to table them or it seems, from his answer to me earlier on today, that the department—according to him—chose not to give them to him. He wrote that he would not table emails that were not on file, yet there are no tabled emails at all, either on file or otherwise. But he did not list any emails as being withheld. Isn't it the case that the way his department's computer system is set up, all emails drop out after 30 days? So wouldn't it be standard practice for them to be printed off and placed on the file? And what are we to make of the fact that there were no emails on either list? Don't his staff use emails? Don't they print them to keep them? Or is the department simply holding them back? I would argue that the latter is more likely to be the case.The government, coordinated by the minister's office, has engaged a great number of consultants, again defending the minister's decision over Jabiluka. Again, I list those consultants: Professor Colin Dudgeon, Dr Wang, Dr Chew, Dr Pittock, Dr Jones, Mr Bruce Stewart, Dr Sri Kanthan, Brian Taylor and Dr Alan Watson. These consultants must all have departmental files of some sort. Do they not play a key role in the minister's strategy to defend his Jabiluka decision? Obviously the minister does not think so. He has not tabled their information and he has not listed as being withheld any reports from them or any other correspondence with them. The minister leads us to believe, in his tabling statement, that there were legal opinions he would not give to the Senate. Yet, when it comes to the list, there were not any legal opinions on the list of documents that were withheld or there were no legal opinions in the documents that we were provided with.The minister will not table a letter that he sent to the World Heritage chair because, he said in his statement, he will not do it without the permission of the addressee. Yet he tabled 11 others to the same committee, presumably without the permission of the addressee in those cases either. The minister has also said in this place that he only wants to present the World Heritage Committee with the truth and the facts. I ask: if the documents he is withholding are only about the truth and the facts, why does he want to hide them? How will the truth and facts hurt international relations? The answer is that we do not know. It is just the minister's assertion that this is the case.Why is there not a draft of the report, which is presumably being developed? This report is designed to sway the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The logic simply does not work. How could such material damage international relations? How could the release of a letter which he sent to an international organisation damage international relations? Minister Hill claims that we just want to get to the documents and send them off to the World Heritage Bureau. If this letter has already been sent to that bureau, why is it being held back from the Senate?The Democrats have, a number of times, offered the minister a third-party option. We think it would be wise if there was an eminent person acceptable to the Senate who could look at all of the documents—and I mean all of them—and make a decision about whether or not his assertions of his grounds for refusal were adequate. So far the minister has refused to consider this option. He has not supplied any of the material which is going to or coming from the Kakadu interdepartmental committee. Presumably this committee would have work plans, time lines and minutes of meetings. Presumably they are being run from Environment Australia. Yet his statements to the Senate would have us believe that they do not have a single document.We have asked a series of questions on the missing documents in the last two parliamentary weeks, to which the minister has given completely unsatisfactory and evasive answers. The minister has fudged. He has ducked and weaved. Today in the Senate he said he had asked my office to reduce the scope of the return to order and that we were not interested. Of course we were not interested. We wanted all of the documents and we were not interested in refining our return to order to one or two documents—as we were asked to do. The parliament knew what they were doing when they ordered these documents. When the Senate said `all documents', that is exactly what it meant. We expected the minister to try and get us to reduce this, but we did not put in an ambit claim in the first place. The return to order was only one topic and it was for a period of only 16 weeks. That is certainly not an unreasonable or a big order.The minister has been the one who has chosen not to comply with this. We have been very patient. As I said earlier, we do not take this action lightly. We have not moved a censure motion for five years. It was, I understand, another five years before that that we moved the previous one. We do not do this as a gratuitous stunt to take up the time of the Senate. But the minister has clearly decided to tough this one out. He is, no doubt, betting on time and hoping that the Senate and the Democrats will give up and turn our minds to the many other important and current issues that face us on a daily basis.It is important to censure Minister Hill for consistently defying an order of the Senate and all reasonable attempts to pursue this matter. I ask the Senate to consider two matters in particular. The first one is: is it an adequate response for a minister to make arbitrary decisions to withhold any documents? I would argue it is not. Even if you were to accept that he might try to do this, and tough out attempts at scrutiny, there is another issue to consider—and that is: were all of the documents covered by the scope of the return to order included in those tables and those listed as withheld? The most cursory examination shows that a substantial body of information was neither tabled in the Senate nor listed as being withheld.The minister has made arbitrary decisions to withhold many documents that have been ordered by the Senate and other attempts to hide documents covered by that order. This is a very serious matter because it is an attempt to subvert meaningful scrutiny of the parliament over the executive. I ask all senators to consider this with the utmost seriousness. The minister is testing the resolve of parliament. It is up to us whether he gets away with it.15:58:003154Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This censure motion differs in its motive from others with which I have had experience. As the honourable senator says, the issue of accountability—the capacity of this chamber to scrutinise performance of governments—is very important. We would all acknowledge that to be the case. But that is not really the complaint of the Australian Democrats. They do not want extra documents in an effort to keep this government honest, or to show that they may have been misled, or—perhaps—to demonstrate incompetence or for any of the usual reasons for which an opposition or a minor party wants documents. They want these documents so that they can use them in direct action overseas against the interests of Australia. They want these documents as part of the campaign that they are waging internationally through the World Heritage Committee to try and defeat a decision that the Australian government made to grant approvals to mine the Jabiluka lease. That is so different from any other motion of this kind.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—On a point of order, I did not know that it was open for a senator in this chamber to impute a motive to the actions of another senator.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Without having heard the full text of Senator Hill's comments, I am sure it is not appropriate for him to impute a motive, but I am sure that it was not his intention to do so.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On the point of order: Senator Margetts, in this chamber a much wider canvass in censure motions has always been accepted than in other debates. So, whilst the point of order would have validity in a lot of debates, censure debates always give speakers a much wider ambit in which to pursue matters, I think. I just submit that to you, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you for that submission, Senator Ray. I will allow Senator Hill to continue.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Mr Acting Deputy President, welcome to the chair. What I was saying is that the Australian Democrats are breaking new ground here because they are seeking ammunition, they are seeking material, for use within an international campaign. That is why they have sought documents through this mechanism: not to hold the government accountable for its action in terms of the parliamentary debate and the domestic political issue that this involves, but in order to provide the tools with which they hope to undermine the credibility of the Australian government in the consideration of that government's position by the World Heritage Committee, formerly in Kyoto but then later this year, in June, in Paris.Why do I say that? I say it because they did not hide the fact from the start. What they did and, sadly, what the Australian Labor Party did—it is a pity that they stooped to this new low hand in hand with the Australian Democrats—was that, instead of taking the debate up at the domestic level within Australia, they wrote to the World Heritage Committee and said, `Don't believe the Australian government. You should classify this world heritage site as in danger. You should make that finding, and here are the reasons that you should take into account to reach that conclusion.' In other words, they have already put before the World Heritage Committee, both directly and indirectly through their agents—a small number of rather extreme NGOs who have been fighting this campaign—a case whereby they say the Australian government should not be believed. This is, in my submission, an extraordinary attitude to take and an extraordinary way in which to pursue an issue of domestic political importance. I do think that the motive of the Australian Democrats in bringing this motion is important to the merits of the case as a whole.What are the facts here? The facts are that the Jabiluka mine application was assessed for almost three years. It was assessed in great detail and with great rigour. This government was determined that its ultimate decision would be based on the best facts, the best law and the best science. What this government decided after nearly three years of consideration was that the Jabiluka mine venture did not pose any threat to the environment and did not pose any threat to cultural values under the world heritage convention.Not surprisingly, the government reached that conclusion because we have had the opportunity, under the scrutiny of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, to witness the Ranger mine in operation for some 18 years. What has been demonstrated is that the Ranger mine has been able to operate in a safe way in what is, I concede, a very sensitive environment. Basically, what the independent, objective Supervising Scientist tells us is that there has been no environmental damage beyond the Ranger mine site at all. That helped in giving confidence to this government that this much smaller—only 22-hectare footprint—Jabiluka venture, which is years on in terms of technology and an underground mine as opposed to an open-cut mine, could be operated in an entirely safe way. So the government made determinations in that regard.But of course those determinations were not satisfactory to the Democrats, who—I give them credit—have always opposed uranium mining and have been consistent in that. But, instead of taking up the debate with the government in the form of this parliament or within the public of Australia, unfortunately they stooped to what I believe to be a new low—that is, they have tried to undermine the Australian government's position and the authorities that have been given by this government under Australian law by going directly to the international World Heritage Committee and trying to use them to apply leverage to the Australian government, trying to get them to classify the world heritage site in Kakadu as in danger in order that the tourist industry in Australia would lose, be disadvantaged, and more pressure would apply to the Australian government.The consents that have been given in this particular matter have, as I have said, been given under Australian law after long and careful consideration. There can be no turning back from those consents, whatever the outcome of further consideration by the World Heritage Committee. Any company or individual who deals with the Australian government has the right to expect certainty of process. The company in this regard undertook years of assessment in accordance with Australian law. Determinations were reached at the end of that process, consents were given and the company has every right to act upon those consents.I will just expand a little further on the benefits of this particular venture because, unfortunately, this is what the Australian Democrats, in their efforts to close down this prospective mine, will cause to be lost—in particular the benefits that flow to Australian Aboriginals from the mining ventures in the Jabiru area. It is interesting that, since the Ranger mine began operating in 1981, a total of $145 million in payments has been made to Aboriginal interests: $1.9 million in up-front payments, $3.4 million in rental payments and $140 million in royalty equivalent payments. I would have thought that was very important, in anyone's language, and something to be put on the positive side.Similarly, very significant benefits will flow to the Aboriginal community in relation to the Jabiluka mine development. Over its life, the Jabiluka mine is expected to provide a further $231 million to Aboriginal interests. These are matters that I would have thought the Australian Democrats, in seeking to close down this prospective mine, should be taking into account if they had in mind the interests of all Australians.In summary, the Jabiluka mine, together with the Ranger mine, will generate approximately $12 billion in revenue to this country, over 85 per cent of which will remain in Australia, and 380 people will be employed directly and about 1,000 indirectly. I do not think there can be any argument that these are very significant benefits to the Australian people, and it is of regret to me that when the Australian Democrats go overseas to try to undermine this development they do not take them into account.On the issue of scrutiny of the government's processes, you would probably be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President—in fact I think you are—that we accepted a demanding and lengthy session very recently in the estimates, when honourable senators examined for many hours the documents and the decision making process of this government. When Senator Allison comes in here and complains about lack of scrutiny, she fails to acknowledge the very substantial scrutiny that has already taken place through that process. She examined not only me as minister but the senior officials who were involved in the decision making process and, I would like to think, got all the answers that she was seeking.Senator Faulkner interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Unfortunately, taking the interjection, it was not sufficient to satisfy Senator Allison. She came back into this chamber and, in addition to asking a series of questions about particular documents and the processes in general, decided to adopt the trawl process of seeking an order from this place that all other documents—or what she determines as all documents—be provided. This is a mechanism to enable the Senate to complete its process of scrutiny. Historically, it is a vehicle that has not been used often; it seems to be used much more often these days. Nevertheless, it is an option that is open to the Senate and, in this instance, the Australian Democrats got the numbers to get the order up. The question then became, when it was framed in such general and all-encompassing terms—`all documents'—exactly what was wanted by the Australian Democrats to complete their task of scrutiny. As I said, we tried to ascertain from them, with some little detail, what it was that they were not able to get through the estimates processes or in other ways—through questioning in here, for example—so that we could see if we could provide those documents for them.Despite the motivation of the Australian Democrats in this regard, it is not our intention to hide anything. As I said, this was a thorough process involving nearly three years of scrutiny. Of course, all the key documents involved in the approval process were released in accordance with the act shortly after the decisions were made and are already on the public register. Nevertheless, we sought to ascertain what further information was being sought and were told that it was not up to them to give us any help in that regard, we had the order of the Senate and we should go away and comply with it.If you interpreted that literally, it would mean hundreds—if not thousands—of pieces of paper across the whole of the bureaucracy, because issues related to this matter were being dealt with in a range of different departments, some of which have been mentioned by the Australian Democrats: Foreign Affairs; my department; Prime Minister and Cabinet; Industry, Science and Resources; and others.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—How much was this going to cost?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—The task was so great that we were not able to estimate what the cost would be in public servants' hours involved. I determined to provide the key documents, and I would soon be told by the Australian Democrats if I missed one, because most of them have been leaked to the Democrats in any event. It is just that they are wanting to rely on the documents that were publicly released rather than those that have been leaked.In any event, I decided that the commonsense interpretation in all the circumstances was to look to the key documents, and I sought advice from my department as to what those key documents might be. Those documents were provided to me and listed, and we then applied the traditional, longstanding form of assessment. That is not set out in any statute or other regulatory form; they are guidelines that have been developed over a long period of time, and certainly the detail of them is debated from time to time. I can even recall an occasional debate with Senator Bolkus as to the extent of the protection to the executive, which is basically designed to ensure that, in being accountable, the executive is still able to function effectively, both domestically and internationally.I said in the tabling statement that I was tabling key documents. Other documents I said I was not tabling included draft documents, legal advices, diplomatic communications, et cetera, which traditionally have not been tabled in this place. In the tabling statement I also said—so there is no secret about this, and this is now some weeks ago—that I was not tabling that massive supporting documentation which Senator Allison now says she wanted—papers, notes, drafts, emails, other correspondence et cetera—because, I have to confess, I could not see any benefit coming from that, just very considerable inconvenience to officers and very considerable public expense. I tabled all key documents I believed I could legitimately table.Then the Australian Democrats came back and wrote to me that they wanted basically a list of other key documents that I did not table. I then prepared such a list for them, which I sent to Senator Allison with a covering letter. In that instance I sought to specify the reasons I did not table them. In other words, I sought to be more specifically helpful in relation to those documents than just referring to the general traditions of exemption that I referred to in the previous correspondence. So I provided that list of documents that I was not prepared to table. I also mentioned, as I did in the tabling statement, that there were other key documents that had already been made public and there was little point in tabling a document that was already public.Senator Allison then sought to make something of the fact that in my first letter I had stated the principles in general terms; in the second letter I had stated the principles as they specifically applied to the documents I had determined should not be tabled. I therefore wrote back to her again and explained that that was not the case. I furthermore said that I would seek further advice on the judgment of Hill J. that she referred to in question time yesterday to see if that was relevant to this matter and that if it was I would respond to that.The point I am seeking to make is that, despite the motivation of the Australian Democrats in this matter, which, on the basis of their record to date, is to find tools for the participation in an international campaign against the approvals that have been given by the Australian government, I have nevertheless sought to provide every document that is a substantial document—what I have referred to as a key document—that could and should be before the parliament.I know that Senator Allison would know if there are other so-called key documents that I have not provided. If she knew that was the case, by now she would have told me what they are, and I would have gone back and again searched the records and, if they existed, tabled them. What she said today is that she wanted documents such as the working documents of the interdepartmental committee, she wanted the legal advices, she wanted the drafts, she wanted the officers' various advices to me, she wanted work plans, she wanted time lines from within the department. These are exactly the documents which are not normally encompassed by such motions within this place and which successive governments have declined to table.I complete my contribution by saying that this matter is now of course not just about an assessment process on Jabiluka; it is about the procedure that the World Heritage Committee has adopted to scrutinise the Australian government's handling of this matter. On the record today, that has not been a happy process. The report of the committee that visited Australia was clearly riddled with legal, factual and scientific errors. The way in which the committee sought to make preliminary findings on the basis of that and the lobbying of the Australian Democrats and the ALP have not given this government any confidence that this matter is being treated as something that is seriously in the national interest. (Time expired)16:20:003158Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—That was a rather poor response that I felt was a little thin in places. I want to take what I hope is a more objective approach than Senator Hill's, which would not be hard, and look at the facts of the matter that is before us. As far as the opposition is concerned, we do treat a censure motion as something of significance in the parliamentary forum. We will not vote willy-nilly for a censure motion. We want to look at the facts. We want to make a proper examination. And if a minister is worthy of censure, then the opposition will do the proper thing, Senator Hill.But let us look at the facts of the matter that are before us now. On 18 February the Senate agreed to a motion from Senator Allison that there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, 8 March 1999, all documents relating to the Jabiluka mine proposal since 1 October 1998. In response to this order, Senator Hill tabled what he termed to be `key documents held by or generated by Environment Australia'. In the same tabling statement he said:I am not tabling draft documents, legal advice, diplomatic communications, or electronic mail messages not placed on file. I am also not tabling certain documents dealing with Australia's relations with other members of the World Heritage Committee and certain internal advice provided to me by my portfolio.He went on to say:The release of such documents could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth, or they are internal working documents the release of which could be contrary to the public interest, or they are subject to legal professional privilege.What occurred after that, when pressed by Senator Allison for more specific information about the material that he chose not to table in the Senate, was that Senator Hill wrote to Senator Allison on 10 March—I appreciate that that letter was subsequently tabled, so there was a little bit of transparency from the minister in that regard—saying that he had decided not to table 13 of the documents that were included in a list of documents prepared for him by his department in response to the Senate's return to order.Senator Hill claimed that 12 of those documents constituted internal advice to him from his department and internal correspondence with other ministers. He said that he was relying on the grounds of public interest immunity and potential to affect Australia's international relations in refusing to table the 12 documents concerned. In relation to the 13th document he simply said:I am not prepared to table document 13, except with the permission of the addressee.That is, the current Chairman of the World Heritage Committee. On 10 March, Senator Hill refused a request from Senator Allison to appoint an independent third-party to examine withheld documents to assess the strength of the claims put forward by the minister. He came out with the phrase at that time, `Goodwill works both ways; you show a bit and we'll show a bit in return.' That was the approach apparently that the minister thought was reasonable to take at that time. Now, of course, we have moved on to debate a motion of censure, notice of which was given by Senator Allison yesterday. Fundamentally, that censure is around the issue of Senator Hill not complying fully with the return to order of the Senate for the production of documents.Where does the opposition find itself in this particular debate? Where do any other senators, if there are any other senators that come to this with an objective capacity to make an objective assessment on the issues that are before the chamber, find themselves? Well, we have to pass judgment as to whether Senator Hill has adequately responded to the order of the Senate. If he has not adequately responded to the order for the production of documents, is his failure worthy of the Senate's censure? Even the most cursory examination of the relevant papers reveals that, at the very least, we have Senator Hill quite clearly being very sloppy and very dismissive in his responses to senators and to the Senate.I appreciate that Senator Hill does not want to be environment minister. Who would want to be environment minister in the Howard government? I mean, who really would want that job! We know that Senator Hill does not want it, but what has he done in relation to this? Let us look, again, at the facts. Senator Hill has unilaterally decided to limit the tabling to `key documents held or generated by Environment Australia'. So, unilaterally, he decides to limit the order for the production of documents.Senator Hill's initial claim of legal professional privilege quickly evaporated when he was pressed to provide specific reasons for withholding the 13 documents. It turned out, as far as I can see, that there is not one document where the claim of legal professional privilege actually applied. So that claim from Senator Hill is right out of the window also. Of course, he released 11 documents that were addressed to the World Heritage Committee, four of those being personal letters to the chair of the committee. Yet he refused to release, interestingly enough, his letter to the chair of the committee on 29 January because he did not have the permission of the chair. This is a principle that did not apply in relation to those other cases. As we look at the issue of whether Senator Hill should be censured, bringing the objective analysis of the opposition to this question—2M6COONANSenator Coonan—You are being fair about it, aren't you?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Let us face it, he has been very sloppy indeed. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has quite clearly been very inconsistent in the way that he has dealt with these issues. In deciding whether censure is warranted, one needs to look at whether it is an on-balance decision, which I think it is in this case, to be fair. I do not think it is an open and shut case as to whether it is a matter worthy of censure because, as I said, a censure is something that we ought to treat seriously in this chamber. What do you do when it is an on-balance decision? I think it is worth going to sources of learned advice and precedent on these sorts of matters. That is exactly what the opposition have done. With regard to learned sources of advice, I readily admit—and I think this would be known to senators in the chamber—that when Labor were in government we did not always fully comply with returns to order. But we were diligent in ensuring that the maximum possible number of documents were supplied and we were scrupulous, I believe, in arguing our case and our claims for withholding certain documents. The difference is that the opposition, when in government, took its responsibilities on these sorts of matters seriously.This is not just my view. This was acknowledged by the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Hill, on 20 May 1993. Let me quote him:When I look back upon experiences of recent times, for example, a similar order that we imposed on Senator Evans in relation to the Marshall Islands affair last year, there were all sorts of protests about how difficult it would be and so forth. But Senator Evans, to give him credit, tabled the documents. There were some parts that he preferred not to, and they were whited out. We had discussions and it was handled in a proper way because they were sensitive to individual interests and so forth.In the same speech, which I commend—I commend this precedent to the Senate—Senator Hill said:I remember another case only a year or so ago involving Senator Bolkus under the administrative services portfolio in relation to a tendering process. We imposed an order upon him because we wanted to see whether matters had been handled properly or improperly. He was not at all happy with that; nevertheless, he accepted his obligation to comply with the order of the Senate, as all ministers should be prepared to if we are going to have a decent system of accountability within our democratic structures.He complied with the order also. So I make the point that it is not just the current Leader of the Opposition in the Senate who believes that the Labor Party in government did come to this with goodwill and did bring to bear proper and thorough process; it was even Senator Hill when he was the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.In withholding certain information from tabling, we too relied on grounds which included legal professional privilege, public interest immunity, national security and commercial-in-confidence grounds amongst others. We accepted in government—and I think consistency does dictate that we accept this also in opposition—that there are limits on the extent to which governments can place information in the public domain.You ask the question: who is to determine these limits? The Clerk of the Senate, Mr Evans, has provided advice on this matter on a number of occasions over the years. Mr Evans wrote to me on 24 November last year, saying:In seeking to force the executive to provide information, the Senate has two kinds of remedies available to it: non-justiciable political remedies and justiciable legal remedies.He went on to say:It is unlikely that a contest between the Senate and the executive over an executive refusal to supply information could be brought before the courts at any stage before the imposition of a penalty.He further said:On the whole, the political remedies are likely to be more effective than a contest in the courts.That is confirmed in a letter from the Clerk Assistant, Procedure, who pointed out in an earlier communication to the opposition:It is generally recognised that the tension between executive claims for confidentiality and the parliament's right to know must be resolved politically.I think that is generally accepted. That is the import of the advice to all of us, that it is the politicians who must determine an appropriate political resolution of the tension between this Senate's demand for information relating to the Jabiluka mine and the minister for the environment's refusal to provide it. That is precisely what we are about.As I said, for a political party like the Labor Party—which wants to ensure that it makes an objective assessment and a proper, balanced and principled decision on an issue as important as a censure motion—the issue is where you go for further enlightenment about the appropriateness of a formal censure of a minister in these sorts of circumstances. It was in desperation that I turned to the parliamentary record. What did I find? I am sure the Senate will be relieved to know that it was a treasure trove of information. I think Senator Hill would describe it as the proverbial embarrassment of riches. On 3 June 1992 Senator Hill said, in relation to documents on a matter concerning the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade:Surely the Senate is entitled to the documents, being the whole of the documents. If there are matters of personal confidentiality or matters of that type, then there are well acknowledged procedures to ensure that they are excised or brought to the attention of an individual on a confidential basis.Senator Alston said on 3 June 1992:When push comes to shove, at the end of the day the Senate has an unfettered power to demand documents.Senator Alston said on the same day:The ultimate power resides in the Senate and it can resolve to compel the production of documentation and, indeed, witnesses—quite unconstrained. The practical reality is that both sides of politics acknowledge from time to time there may be good cause why one would withhold certain material, whether it be on the grounds of national interest, national security, commercial-in-confidence, the jeopardising of relations between States and a whole range of other things. But it is not for the Minister to simply invoke those and say, `Here you are, I have given you what I deem to be your entitlement'.Senator Alston on 3 June 1992 said:But it is simply not on for a Minister to unilaterally take it upon himself to decide what is and what is not disclosable.Senator Hill on 20 May 1993 said:. . . as much as Ministers might not like being called to account by the Senate, it is our responsibility that they are and we are not going to let them avoid their responsibilities so easily by simply snubbing their nose at the Senate . . .Finally, of all people, Senator Knowles—the new bullyboy of the government—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Bullyboy?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Yes, bullyboy. On 16 December 1993 she said:For the government to continue to ignore such orders made by the Senate is an absolute and utter contempt of the Senate. It has become commonplace for this government to act in such a manner. Senators from all parties in this place cannot continue to condone this type of action and let the government off the hook. If a request has been made by the Senate, the government should be made to deliver on that request, and on time.You see, they have got form. And in the face of such an overwhelming and convincing argument in the words of government senators in support of the strongest possible action by the Senate to assert the Senate's rights in these matters, at the moment I have got to say I am minded to support this censure.16:40:003161Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This has been an amazing argument today. If I could paraphrase what Senator Faulkner has just presented to the Senate, he admitted with his quotes that `We were bad but you are worse' in relation to the presentation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I don't think I ever used that word.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I know. Senator Faulkner did not actually say that. I am paraphrasing it in my own words, but basically he read out several rather serious criticisms of his own government in relation to the release of documents. Basically he is saying that the standards of this government are worse than the standards set by Labor when they were in government. That is a great concern because I believe that certainly by the end of their term of office the Labor government were showing considerable contempt for the Senate. I do recall several debates in relation to those very issues in this chamber. So, if that is the case, it is something to be concerned about.What are we talking about in relation to the power of executive government? The minister has mentioned 12 documents held back for what he calls `public interest immunity'. However, the minister also says that he believes it is in the public interest that the mine should go ahead. How do you translate that? Public interest immunity may mean that those documents may be detrimental to the mine going ahead. Well, isn't that interesting? The first part of the minister's presentation expressed his outrage at what he thought the information might be used for.I would like to remind honourable senators, through you, Mr Chair, that the minister has forgotten that any document tabled in this chamber, because of the ability to be tabled, can be used by anybody. It can be used if necessary, I guess, across the Sydney Harbour Bridge if so desired. If there is a desire for the community to obtain information and if there is a reasonable reason for that information to become available, it is irrelevant what members of this parliament are planning to do with it. It is also irrelevant what members of the public plan to do with it. It is not the place of the executive to make decisions about access to documents based on what people are planning to do with that information. That is not, I believe, the prerogative of executive government. If that is considered to be the prerogative of executive government, I am afraid this ministry has already forgotten what they are supposed to be involved in with the separation of powers.It is not supposed to mean that a minister can decide what is right or wrong for the parliament, for senators or for the public based on information that is in this parliament or that is made available through this parliament, unless what is made available is dealt with illegally—and then of course we have criminal laws to deal with those issues. So if what we are saying is that the minister for the environment has become a proponent of mining, then we are saying that it is his opinion that in the public interest he should withhold any information which will be detrimental to the thing which he has considered to be good—and that it equals the public interest if the interests of the environment minister equal the interests of the mining minister and he declares any documents which may harm his purpose in allowing the mine to go ahead to be against the public interest.I think there is a very serious problem here. We know that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been very limited in what it considers to be legitimate reasons for withholding documents. How dare a minister come into this place and suggest that—for reasons of what he considers to be the use or potential use of those documents—he will consider that releasing those documents to the public and to the parliament is against the public interest? How dare he? How dare he thumb his nose at that basic, simple level of accountability?Whether or not the mine can be administered in a safe way is, of course, an issue of high dispute. But we cannot have a situation where, right now, within the operation of the parliament, a government is already acting as if it is born to rule.We already have a situation where the government are annoyed that the Senate is amending or debating any of the proposals which they come up with, as if we have not got a right to debate or amend their proposals. In the media, they are demanding changes to the voting system and to the Constitution to make sure that small parties and independents cannot voice the concerns of the community.This is further evidence of that contempt. This is further evidence that we need to move to a strengthening of the separation of powers, not a blurring so that a minister can decide, `I don't like the way you are likely to use this information so on that basis I will declare it against the public interest to release it.' That is patently a nonsense and it is patently against the general public interest of this country.If there is information in those documents which would be damaging to the ongoing sham approval process that this government has engaged in, then that information should be in the public arena. The right decision should have been made. If the right decision was not made, and if the documents show that the right decisions were not made or that information that should have been taken into consideration was not, whatever methods this government used to try to sway an international body—and how dare they talk about other people mentioning the international arena—against making a decision based on proper process should be out in the public arena.Mr Acting Deputy President, this is disgraceful. On the evidence that is before me, I feel that I can support this censure motion. I take these motions seriously because they are about the basis of democracy. And contempt of democracy should be exposed.16:47:003162Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to support the motion of censure moved by Senator Allison. I think it is important for us to focus on the two key questions that are before us today. Firstly, did Minister Hill comply with the order of this place to put on the table here all the documents relating to the Jabiluka mine proposal since October 1998? Secondly, do we care whether or not he did?Let us go back to the first question. This one has already been agreed. We already have a decision; there is no dispute. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage himself accepts that he has not complied with the order to table all documents. In his tabling statement of 8 March he began by saying:The attached documents constitute key documents held by or generated by Environment Australia.That is a very, very narrow definition. Indeed, in this place he again said that he has only released those documents that he felt comfortable classing as key documents and therefore releasing.So on the question of whether the minister complied, he has already conceded that the answer is no. He admits it. I think we have the basic facts before us, agreed by all sides, and should move on. Before I move on, I should add that that in itself should be enough for this place to agree to the motion of censure. But it is more than just a procedural debate, so let us move on.I think this is a very real test of the Senate's commitment to the actual principle of parliamentary scrutiny over the executive. Are we simply going to let the executive make all the decisions, right down to which documents they release, decide whether or not certain scientific evidence is relevant to their cause or anyone else's, and be very selective as to what they let the rest of us know? As we decide today to vote for or against this motion, or perhaps abstain, we must look carefully at where we are going from now on, if we decide that the executive can decide what we are entitled to know and what we are not entitled to know.Let us look at the second question: do we care that the minister has snubbed an order of this parliament? The Democrats do care. Whether we decide eventually to support this motion or not, I think each of us needs to ask, in order to answer for ourselves: did the minister have a reasonable excuse for deciding this way? If we do care, and our answer is, `Yes, we care,' we need to look carefully at the issue of whether there was a good enough excuse.I am happy to have a go at this one. Clearly, the answer for us is no. The minister says he is not obliged to table draft documents. But if we go back in history, as Senator Faulkner has just done for us, we see there were plenty of occasions when draft documents have been amongst those tabled.He says he is not able to table legal advice. Again, I have major questions about that. Firstly, that has happened in the past. Also, with regard to looking at legal advice, surely that is something he would be following and would be quite happy to table.The minister says he is not obliged to table emails. This is something that has come up fairly recently. I think all of us who are now online have a massive problem with the volume of these that we are getting. Surely the minister runs a department tight enough to keep these on file.He says that to search for supporting documents would be too costly, even though we have only asked for a specific set of documents—that is, a 16-week period—and we know that his department is in a position to comply. Surely, photocopying a few documents is not tremendously expensive.The minister says that there are documents held throughout the bureaucracy. He says that he is only going to supply us with those held by Environment Australia. But Environment Australia has a lot of copies of the other documents from other departments. Surely the environment department, as a natural course of events, keeps material relevant to it on an issue like this that other departments may have generated.The minister says that he will not release a particular letter which he sent to the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee without the addressee's permission. But he has just done that. Other letters to the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee have been released—obviously, the ones he felt comfortable releasing.This last reason for ignoring the order of the Senate has not even been given to the Senate yet. That was actually contained in some correspondence with Senator Allison. So the minister is changing his stated reasons from day to day. Not only did this one turn up after the event, but so did this new phrase which the minister is using—the catch-all, I guess you could describe it as—`public interest immunity'.The minister has not even had the courtesy to inform the Senate of this new one. It seems an ever changing reason for refusal. It seems he would have us believe that it is okay for his reasons for refusal in his tabling statement to basically be a work in progress—something that is moving on, day by day, and is able to be changed at whim.What did the minister actually do? He provided a small number of documents relating to Environment Australia. He then, in a subsequent letter to Senator Allison, provided a list of further documents which he said he would not provide. Even today in questions to the minister, Senator Allison was able to provide a further list of 16 public servants and nine paid consultants all working on the issue, all of whom have apparently produced no documents—or as the minister would have us believe, perhaps they have produced no `key' documents. One has to ask: what have they been doing? I find it very hard to believe that this government has employed nine consultants who have basically produced nothing. They have produced no key work and no key documents at all and have been of no value to the taxpayer. One has to ask: what on earth are we paying them for?The minister admits he ignored the order of the Senate. He has produced only some of the documents—`key' documents. He has not produced documents from other departments even though he acknowledges that they exist. He provides only a limited range of documents from Environment Australia. He has tried to bluff his way out of questions in question time in a way that he would never have tolerated if he were sitting over on these benches. Again I refer to the evidence presented by Senator Faulkner.I was listening today to the minister's defence. What is the minister's defence? We have had bits and pieces throughout the week as we have tried to get to the bottom of this issue in question time rather than through measures such as this. One defence he brought up earlier was that this was just a publicity stunt on our part. I point out to the minister that this is the first time in five years that the Australian Democrats have moved to censure a minister. It is not an action we take lightly.The next argument used by Senator Hill is that we are out to intentionally damage this country's international relations. I say, as an aside to Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, that the government does a very good job of this all on its own—it does not need any help from us. But, to look at this issue seriously, it is absolutely unacceptable for the minister to look at any potential use of documents—not for a moment am I suggesting that we have done that with any document from 8 March. We have not sent any of these documents you have given us anywhere overseas. We are simply asking that we get this debate sorted out domestically. We believe we should be debating this on the floor of this chamber with all the material in front of us.The minister said today that he had made this decision on the best facts, the best law and the best science available to him. That is what has led him to decide that this mine should go ahead. How do we know the government has relied on the best facts when we cannot get all the facts? How do we know that you have done it on the best law when we cannot get your legal advice? How do we know that it has been based on best science when we cannot get all the scientific evidence that you have available to you? We have not seen the details so how can we possibly have the proper debate that we are supposed to be having here in this country?Let us look at the other red herrings that the minister dragged around today. He talked about the benefits of the venture. We have already agreed to disagree on that. The minister argues that it is to the benefit of the Aboriginal people, but the Aboriginal people up there do not want it, do not agree that there has been any real benefit to them at a local level in their community from the existing mine and have made it very clear, to the point of being sent to gaol, that they do not want this new mine. So we will have to disagree on that. It is simply a red herring and is completely irrelevant to whether the minister should be tabling documents.We are prepared to debate this issue domestically if we can get these documents on the table. But if we do not get the documents that are really at the centre of this debate, how can we?The third argument is that it is all too hard—what the Democrats want will cost a fortune. The minister mentioned this again today, that we were being unreasonable. This is also absolute nonsense. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to limit the documents we want to a specific period of time, a 16-week period. I do not think we could have asked for anything more direct. We are not trawling through everything he has ever done, said or seen on Jabiluka. We are looking at a specific period of 16 weeks. I believe it would be very easy for the Public Service, presuming it is being run efficiently, to keep detailed files and records and therefore to comply with that quite easily.Basically what has happened is that a political decision has been made simply not to comply. For political reasons associated with domestic politics—it has nothing to do with anything on the international arena—he does not want to comply. Frankly, this is something that the Senate should absolutely reject. If we do not reject his arguments, if we let this censure motion pass through without support, then basically we are giving up being a house of review.It is particularly apt that we proceed with this today—a day in which another government minister has admitted that he misled parliament over three months ago in an answer to me on a question of nuclear issues. This issue has, interestingly enough, now involved Senator Hill's junior minister. I suspect Senator Minchin's troubles may well not have come to light had we not been pursuing this formal censure motion today—a procedure which I again stress we use very seriously and very sparingly.I seek the support of the Senate. Let me reiterate in closing that the minister admits he did not comply fully with the order, he never intended to. He has provided a list of reasons for not doing so which are flimsy and weak. Basically he regards the whole thing as work in progress. He adds to the list of excuses when challenged but without the courtesy of updating his reasons in Hansard. He is still trying to bluff it out by dragging a lot of red herrings through the debate here today and he will succeed if senators do not choose to enforce the order we have already passed in this place. The facts are clear; the response is weak and predictable. Bluster does not an argument make. Today we have a choice: to hold this government accountable or to let them off the hook. The decision of every senator today to vote for or against or to abstain from this motion will tell us a lot about the future accountability of government in Australia.As I said previously, the Democrats have not moved a censure motion for five years. We do take this seriously. We do not do this lightly. We believe in accountable government and I hope that other senators do too.17:00:003165Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—This morning when I was reading through the Canberra Times I saw an article headed `Hill faces censure over Jabiluka' and I thought that I would ring up my old mate Senator Hill and see if I could give him some assistance in the chamber. The article said that the opposition environment spokesman, Nick Bolkus, had said that Labor would support the motion. `I have got more documents in my office that have been leaked than have been tabled,' he said.I listened very closely to Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He was trying to give a balanced opinion to the Senate—and he admitted that the case for the Democrats was a bit thin—and trying to inform the Senate that, on the balance of what the Democrats were offering and all the evidence that was put forward, he would have to make a decision. Of course, that is a farce. The Labor Party went into the censure motion today supporting the Democrats—as they should. In this world, if you take a bit you have to return a bit, and the Labor Party and the Democrats have been trading with each other ever since we became part of the government. I remember, going back some time, when occasionally the Democrats even used to vote with us.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Once, was that?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Well, it was a long time ago; I can remember it in the far distant past. Of course, if the Labor Party relies on the support of the Democrats, then of course it has to support the censure motion. That is not beyond anyone's understanding. I have listened very closely to this debate and I have listened to the questions over the period of the past couple of weeks. What appears to me to have happened is that Senator Hill has tabled a number of documents, but there are 12 documents that he has refused to table because of sensitivity, and there is one document to the World Heritage Committee that he has said he will not table unless he gets permission from the addressee. I thought that that was pretty reasonable. Even Senator Faulkner said that there are limits to what information can be placed in the public arena when it comes to the sensitive issue of uranium.Senator Hill then went on to say in today's question time, I think: `Give us a list of the documents that you want, and I will try and assist you.' The response was, `We want everything.' If you know what you want, I suggest that you give Senator Hill a list of the documents and he will try and obtain those documents for us, if it is possible. On this side of the House, Senator Hill is known as a reasonable person. The National Party thinks that sometimes he is too reasonable with the Democrats. He is certainly a person that would not try and obfuscate his responsibilities in the Senate; yet you have not given him a list of the documents that you require. You have trawled through the Senate committees, you have asked a number of questions, and I would say that if you cannot nominate the documents that you require then it is really an exercise in futility trying to put out a big dragnet to pick up everything.Senator Allison has brought this censure motion forward on Senator Hill on the production of documents. The censure motion says that he did not comply fully with the order of the Senate for the production of documents in relation to the Jabiluka uranium mine and the report of the 1998 UNESCO mission to Kakadu. I would say to Senator Allison that the minister has taken a position of absolute responsibility over this whole issue of the Kakadu mine and the production of documents as demanded by the Democrats. The whole issue has become emotive. We all know that the Democrats are terribly against any form of uranium mining and that, if they had their way, they would close down any uranium mine in Australia. Senator Woodley nods his head in assent to that.We have had in this debate Senator Faulkner, a leading Left figure in the Labor Party, and Senator Bolkus. I think that they would concur; the Left would concur with the Democrats. It does not appear that any of the Right or the Centre Left or the Independents are going to join this debate. The Left of the Labor Party divides from the Right, because the Right is concerned about the 380 jobs that this mine is going to produce and the 1,000 indirect jobs that the mine will also produce. Therefore, you have a divide in the Labor Party, with the Left of the Labor Party joining with the Democrats—which are more to the left than the Left of the Labor Party is. So you have a coalition of the Left pushing forward this motion.I want to say that the record of the government and the minister has to be looked at objectively. The government are committed to the protection of Kakadu and have ensured that the world heritage values are not threatened. They have imposed 80 strict requirements on the company. The government will ensure that these requirements are observed during the construction and operation of the mine through a regime which includes regulation by the independent Supervising Scientist. The government have conducted a rigorous environmental impact study lasting nearly three years, which has demonstrated that the mine can produce without any adverse impact on Kakadu. Further, the government are also committed to the implementation of outcomes for the Kakadu region.On the social impact study, the government will work in partnership with local Aboriginal communities to ensure that the economic, social and cultural benefits of developments are enjoyed by the local communities. We all know Senator Woodley's support for Aborigines. It is on record, and I accept that he is always very concerned about the Aboriginal community. But, Senator Woodley, again we face a divide in this parliament. We would say that you do not make the Aboriginals dependent on social welfare. Here is an opportunity to give them a benefit of their mine ownership. The Ranger mine has been operating in Australia under Labor and a coalition government who have been very responsible in relation to the mine.Ranger has been operating for 18 years right next door to the Jabiluka lease. It is interesting to look at the benefits of the Ranger mine over the past 18 years. Since the Ranger mine became operational in 1981, nearly $146 million has been paid to Aboriginal interests. That is not sit-down money. That is not money to do nothing. That is not a handout. That is money that they are entitled to because it is their land that the mine is operating on. It is money that they get every week and, I am told, it is the money they really appreciate, money they will drive miles and miles to get because it is their money. They own it—it is not just some handout they are getting—and that is the money that they really appreciate.This money has been made up of $1.9 million in up-front payments, $3.4 million in rental payments and $140 million in royalty payments that go directly to the Aboriginal communities. Already the proposed Jabiluka mine operation, which has not even commenced, has generated $5.2 million in benefits to Aboriginal people. The traditional owners have given permission to mine Jabiluka not once but twice—in 1982, under the Jabiluka agreement, and again in 1991—and the Northern Land Council believes that consent given by the traditional owners should be honoured.Senator Woodley, you would know that when a mine starts near Aboriginal communities the mining companies do everything possible to get Aboriginal workers to join the work force of that mine. They go to great lengths to do that. They train the Aboriginal people in driving trucks and working machinery. It gives them jobs. It gives them security. It takes them off the social welfare payments. You should rejoice in that, Senator, because you know, as a former Uniting Church minister—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I still am.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—As you still are, as you tell me, that these sorts of jobs give people a sense of belonging.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Really dangerous mining jobs, yes.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—They are not dangerous mining jobs. They give people a sense of belonging to the community. You seem to reject that, and I think that is terribly selfish of you, Senator, and of all the senators over there. You are all on 80,000, 90,000 or 100,000 bucks a year but you want to deprive the Aboriginal community of being able to get a job. I do not think that is in the best interests of the Aboriginal community, otherwise they would have rejected the mine. They have not. The Northern Land Council believes the consent given by the traditional owners should be honoured.The World Heritage Committee, when it put Kakadu on the World Heritage List in 1991, was fully aware that uranium mining was operating at the Ranger lease. It was fully aware of that, and that it was proposed to become operational at the adjacent Jabiluka mine. As Senator Hill has pointed out, you have a pinpoint out there—22 square kilometres. This mining lease covers 10 kilometres by 10 kilometres. I want to illustrate this point. It must be clearly understood, despite the protests and misinformation, that the Jabiluka uranium mine that is proposed to be developed is on a mining lease which has never been part of the Kakadu National Park and has never been part of the Kakadu world heritage area.There are flaws in the UNESCO mission report. The recommendations are not supported by any evidence. It questions the compatibility of mining in proximity to a world heritage area and therefore concludes Jabiluka should be stopped, ignoring all the time that the Ranger mine next door has been operating for 18 years without any adverse effect on Kakadu. We have a mine that has been operating there, providing Aboriginal jobs, giving Aboriginal people money that they deserve because they in fact own the land. They are the rightful traditional owners, and they are getting some benefit out of it. Some of them want to work. Some of them want to follow their traditional ways. That is up to them, but at least the opportunities are there. I can never understand the Left in the Labor Party trying to prevent people having jobs—and trying to prevent Aboriginal people having jobs is even more difficult to understand.Australia is implementing total international and domestic environmental requirements and safeguards. The Democrats are jumping on their own political bandwagon for their own purposes quite divorced from the truth of this matter. There are many questions about the process of the mission report and the conflicts within the majority drafting group, which did not recommend calling for an immediate hold on the Jabiluka mine.The censure motion that has been put forward by Senator Allison, fully supported by Senator Bolkus, actually devalues the currency of censure motions. The government and the minister have acted totally properly, with great responsibility at all stages of the development of the Jabiluka mine. They have given most of the documents. If you scope down what you want and if it is possible, Senator Hill will give you the other documents that you require. You just cannot throw out a big fishing net to drag around his department for the next three months and then hope that something is going to come out that will give you a great advantage. I have been in this place now longer than most. Senator Bolkus came a bit before me.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Twenty months too long.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—When you are in government, the buck stops with Senator Hill. He has to make these decisions and he has to sell his point of view to the cabinet. We do need these jobs. We need the money that this project is going to provide. The Democrats do not particularly worry about jobs. They put them at a very low priority.Senator Hill, you have the support of the National Party. I certainly could not support this censure motion and I do not believe that Senator Hill's actions deserve any form whatsoever of censure.17:16:003168Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Unfortunately for Senator Hill and for Senator Boswell, that is not the view of the opposition. We have had to look seriously, not just in the last 24 hours but over the last few months, at Senator Hill's performance on this issue and at the documentation that surrounds it. We will support this motion because of the performance, because of the fact that we have not had straight answers for quite a long time and because we have not had open government in matters that otherwise would be open to the public to scrutinise.We are concerned that Senator Hill has failed to respond to a Senate order. We are concerned not just because he failed to respond to it in a blatant and arrogant way but also because in failing to respond to it he has tried to skirt his way around his obligations. He has tried to redefine what the Senate order stood for and what it meant. He has tried to give the impression that in doing what he is doing and responding by providing a selective range of documents, he is meeting his obligations under the return to order. He knows full well that the return to order is broader than the way he has redefined it. He knows full well that by referring to key documents he tries to mislead the public, but, in doing so, he really does not mislead the Senate. He is basically avoiding the return to order in bucket loads. There are lots of documents that he knows should be available to the Senate for public scrutiny and there are lots of documents that he should make available to us. BH4HILLSenator Hill—I read in the newspapers that you have them all. You told the journalist you already have them.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Hill, if it is true, as Senator Boswell says, that you have nothing to hide, then why are you trying so hard to hide important documentation? If your record is clean, why won't you provide that documentation to us? You have chosen to refuse to obey the order on a very important issue. You got stuck into Democrat and Labor Party senators for, as you alleged, taking this issue internationally, but we are talking about an area which has international recognition and ramifications, and respect. We are talking about an area which has been listed on an international register because of those internationally respected values—cultural and scientific. We are talking about an area of international world heritage concern.We are talking about the world community, through the World Heritage Committee, in application of its convention, taking an interest in Australia and the dereliction of our duties. That process will continue not because the Democrats, the Labor Party or anyone else in this community is concerned about what you are doing with the Kakadu area; it will continue because through your actions you are damaging and putting into danger some of those values which are respected and need to be protected by resolution of the rest of the world. It is a legitimate forum for us to be involved in. It was a legitimate forum for the USA to find itself involved in in respect of Yellowstone National Park.Your actions do have important ramifications. The resolution carried by the Senate, the return to order, had some potency. If, today, we do not back it up with the censure of the minister, then we might as well write off as ineffectual the return to order mechanism into the future.You say you have produced a list of documents. You say that we should be happy with your assessment of what is a key document and what is a fundamental document. This process is not about the government or the Public Service telling us what we should have a look at. This process of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive hinges very much on the executive being able to have as broad an access to documentation as is possible.Senator Boswell says that we should trust Senator Hill because his department came up with 80 recommendations in this area. They came up with 77. If it were not for the fact that documentation was leaked, we would not have understood how those 77 recommendations by Environment Australia were watered down by Minister Parer before the last election and have turned out to be totally ineffectual. Those documents are important for us and we need to see them in terms of providing adequate scrutiny of this government's performance.The best person to quote concerning the importance of production of documents in the scrutiny process is Senator Hill himself. Just a few years ago he said, `We want to get to the bottom of this particular issue. We have said to the minister that to do so we require certain documents to be tabled.' He knew the importance then of having documents tabled. We know the importance now. I am sure the minister also knows why it is important to table documents and why it is important for him not to have some documents tabled.To get an idea of the extent of the arrogance and obstruction that we see today, let us also recognise that Senator Hill, in not responding to the return to order, is not tabling documents which ordinarily would be tabled, whether they are memos, emails or whatever. He has the gall to table press clippings, amongst this huge wad of documentation. He has the gall to table documents from the World Heritage Committee—press clippings, press statements—as if he is giving us something that we have not seen before, but he does not table documents which this house has long expected to be tabled, whether they are emails, memos or whatever.The other thing I find quite offensive is that the range of documents he is prepared to produce today, or was prepared to produce a couple of days ago, is even more limited than what Senator Allison or any senator in this place could get under the FOI Act. The FOI Act would give us greater productivity in terms of documents than this minister is prepared to give to the Senate.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—If you've got deep pockets.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—That is precisely the point, Senator Ray. The FOI Act is there to be used if you have the resources to use it. The leader of the Senate is treating members of the Senate as second-class citizens. The rights he allows to us in terms of access to documentation are rights that are less than those that a normal member of the public would have accruing to them if they were to take this matter through the courts of the land. He is biding time. He thinks that once July is over and the World Heritage Committee makes its ruling, the heat will come off him in another dimension. Senator Hill, you have to acknowledge that allocating the Senate fewer rights of access than the FOI Act does treats members of this place as second-class citizens.When one looks at the role of senators and members of parliament and recognises that we are here for a number of reasons, one of which is as agents for the electorate to pursue their legitimate and otherwise complaints, part of our responsibility is to scrutinise government on behalf of our constituents—to hold government accountable. Part of that is doing things that they cannot otherwise do because they do not have the resources, the knowledge or the financial resources to do them. This process of producing documents is an important element of our being able to meet our obligations and responsibilities to our constituency. Despite all that and despite the fact that we are here as instruments of accountability, this minister says, `Well, I won't even allocate you access that a citizen might find under the FOI Act.' This minister is thumbing his nose at the whole system of parliamentary scrutiny.We are not talking about a one-off situation, as I mentioned earlier. If this minister gets away with redefining the terms of return to order, as he has, his redefinition will become the standard. It will become the benchmark for future governments and ministers in a similar situation. If we do not censure the minister today, we will adopt world's worst practice in terms of Westminster accountability, because the minister will have been al lowed to walk out of the Senate redefining a decision of the Senate in the way he wanted and then proceed to meeting his own redefinition of that term. We may as well not have a return to order at all.One of the other concerns I have with Senator Hill in this matter is the way he has chosen to gild the lily, to put out a tabling statement which is deceptive, which conceals and which is misleading. He talks about these documents constituting key documents. He does not say that they are the only key documents. He will not say that because he knows there are other key documents. But he tells the public, `I am prepared to table key documents.' Senator Hill, why are you not prepared to table all the key documents? Why are you not prepared to let us make the assessment of what is or what is not a key document? Senator Hill then goes on to say, `The government has already released a large number of documents.' Why doesn't he say that the government is refusing to release the most critical documents in this domestic and international debate?Senator Hill then went on, in his normal way, to bag the mission of the World Heritage Committee and said he would not table certain documents. He said he was not going to table legal advice, diplomatic communications and so on. What he did not say was that he was not prepared to table other documents which would ordinarily be tabled. That is an aspect that concerns us also. He is confronting the Senate, being arrogant about not wanting in any sense to meet the determination of the Senate, redefining his own terms of reference and basically trying to tell the public that he is doing more than people expect him to be doing—and we know full well that he is not doing that at all.The cause of this issue is basically Jabiluka and Kakadu and the government's record. We can understand why this government is not prepared to make key documents available. Over the last few months, with every document that has been leaked, we have seen the extent to which this government has chosen to mislead the public. We have seen the extent to which this government is prepared to get into unethical conduct to pursue its illegitimate aims on the international and national levels.A letter from Senator Hill to the chair of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee was leaked to us just a few weeks ago. This government said to that committee, `Look, we know you have an international convention and that under that convention there are specific institutions which have a role in advising the World Heritage Committee, but we want you to move them aside because we don't agree with them, and we want to appoint our own list of suitable experts.' That was an attempt to bodgie up the process, an attempt to fix the court of international judgment on this government. We would not have found that out had some well-meaning person not made the document available to us.The government says, `This is a great process. We have scrutinised it fully, extensively. We have taken advice from the environment department.' But what we do know, once again because of a leak from Environment Australia, is that this government has not taken its responsibility seriously. The government is not open; it is still trying to hide and conceal. What we found out about, in a report from the minister's own department to the minister, was a whole range of inadequacies of this process. I will itemise some of them. This would not be on the public record were it not for the fact that people in the bureaucracy feel so upset about the way this government is handling this issue that they have chosen to leak documentation. In terms of the need for the project, the minister's own department says:. . . there is an element of uncertainty because of the current inadequacies of the baseline data.There are inadequacies in the baseline data. That is pretty fundamental to this project going ahead. In terms of water management, the minister's own department says:Because soil surveys have not been conducted at the site, it is uncertain as to whether sufficient material is available to form a compacted base . . . Time and again in this document—a document the minister is not prepared to produce—there are instances of concern in his own department. The need for baseline data required for assessment is pretty critical. In terms of hydrology and hydrogeology, his own department says:The degree of connection between the deep and shallow aquifer systems was not able to be defined by [ERA] from the available data.There is real concern about the location of this mine. The minister's own department tells him that the data is not sufficient, and what does the minister say? The minister basically does not want this documentation made available. We understand why not when we see advice like that. The best bit of advice though—and I do not think this has actually had any publicity at all before—is the department's concern as to the fauna-flora ecology of the region; pretty important aspects of the Kakadu region. This is the advice the minister is given, this is the warning that the minister is given by his department:Environment Australia does not consider that the flora survey conducted by helicopter [for the Environmental Impact Statement] . . . They have conducted a flora study by helicopter! Environment Australia says:. . . constitutes an appropriate study of vegetation potentially affected by the project.This is the degree of interest and concern this minister has for the heritage values of this particular area. They do a flora study by helicopter, a vegetation study by helicopter! No wonder this minister does not want this documentation to come out. But it is coming out in dribs and drabs and, unfortunately for the minister, the FOI processes will probably start in the not too distant future as well.In terms of other issues of concern to the rest of the world and to us—the cultural issues, the Aboriginal issues—the department tells the minister:Baseline anthropological and archaeological studies have not been undertaken for the specific purpose of this project.If you go out to the area, as I did last week, and talk to the miners and talk to the OSS and talk to the indigenous people, you will find one of the great deficiencies of the process: they cannot agree on where the sacred site areas are. The ERA says that they are a bit further from where the OSS says they are, a bit further from where indigenous Australians say they are. You have got to have concerns if the minister's own department is saying, `You haven't had the right studies taken,' as to how seriously this government is taking this particular issue.I could go on to another document—the document that was released just a few weeks ago detailing the government's strategy to try and get world opinion on side; a multimillion dollar strategy to try and buy votes, not on scientific grounds but by picking the target countries and picking what they might want out of international processes over the next two years—basically trying to do dirty deals to try and win votes for this. As I said, we can see why the government does not want the documentation produced. We can also see that we are talking about an issue of major importance; one that is not just of importance in this parliament but one that also has attracted world opinion.The minister has been able to get away with a fair bit so far. But leak after leak has put him on the back foot. What we are concerned about here is ensuring that we play our legitimate role as a Senate in scrutinising the government's performance. It is not just the minister's relationship with the Senate that is in question; it is also Australia's image and role in the world. If this minister is misleading the World Heritage Committee in the way that he has chosen to mislead this parliament, if this minister is not treating Australia's international responsibilities as seriously as he should, that will reflect on Australia's reputation. It is not within the power of this government and this minister alone to make decisions that will impact so negatively on our reputation abroad.As I said earlier, we have given this quite some thought for quite some time. It is an issue that has lingered on for quite some time. Given Senator Hill's continued performance and dissembling in this area, the opposition felt there was no other option but to support the censure motion.17:33:003171Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—There have been dozens of censure motions moved in this chamber over the last 15 years, and many of them, I have to say, have been trivial. Censure motions are just a devalued currency in this chamber. It is interesting to note, if you look back over the last 15 years, that there have been 32 censure motions moved. The coalition have moved 24 of them. The Democrats today got their score up to three. The Greens, four. The Australian Labor Party, one. So, when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, says we take censure motions seriously, he was being serious because we have only ever moved them in serious circumstances, whereas for the coalition it is standard operating procedure no matter how trivial the thing is.For instance, let us say one of the most articulate and brilliant whips in the history of the Labor Party decides that a quorum is not necessary at a particular time. They wasted hours of the chamber's time trying to censure that very historical figure in the Labor Party, noted for his ties, his shirts and everything else. We all knew he was just waving away bogong moths at the time, but that is how they trivialise censure motions.The other thing that I need to say at the start of this contribution is: the success of censure motions really depends not on the case but on who the target is. Basically, if you are not a very nice person you run a much higher risk of censure than if you are a nice person. I have been lucky—I have never been censured and I have never been accused of being nice. I have to say it is a matter of great regret to me that I have never been censured by this chamber. It certainly has not impressed my preselection panel that this august chamber has never bothered to censure me. I think that at the last preselection I faced I got 88 per cent of the vote. If my colleagues here had taken me seriously and censured me I would have got a much higher vote on that last occasion than I did.I think today Senator Hill would have been better to plead guilty so he did not have to sit through the whole debate. It probably would have been less painful for him. I think by forcing him to sit here through this whole debate we have probably almost punished him enough. He will find that a bit bigger punishment than censure.This censure motion hinges on returns to order. It just reinforces the old axiom, doesn't it? What goes around comes around. Returns to order, when I arrived in this chamber too long ago, were virtually unheard of—you might get one every three years. Who devised returns to order as a tactic to attack the executive? The coalition did. Starting in 1988, and gathering momentum as the years went by, they flooded this particular chamber with returns to order—always associated with pomposity, always associated with articulating the rights of this chamber, always with that very serious look that they can put on at such times, enunciating principle and demanding every document under the sun.Of course, things changed once they got into government. I accept that things change according to your perspective or where you sit in this chamber, but I do not think they should change as dramatically as they have for the coalition. We on the Labor side have tried to resist the temptation of opportunism in opposition—not to argue 180 degrees opposite just because we sit on this side of the chamber—in relation to these principles as they affect the Senate. But all we get now is the government squealing and squawking about returns to order. They have also shown that they are far less likely to comply with returns to order than the previous government—the government that they criticised for this.I found it interesting to listen to Senator Hill complain about the amount of resources that would be required to produce these documents. I can remember a return to order on Senator Collins that ran to 113,000 pages.BH4HILLSenator Hill—He refused to table anything.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator Hill says it was not complied with. I am going to get to that. But who came into this chamber and said it was an easy task? Who came into this chamber and said it was as easy as falling off a log to produce these documents? It was not Senator Hill. No, it was Senator Alston. He came in here and said that it was the easiest thing in the world to do and we were just filibustering and trying to delay. We are not talking about 113,000 pages here; we are talking about 12 or 13 documents, plus others that we have yet to identify—although some of the speakers in this debate have alluded to them. The question of resources and time is a nonsense in this case. It is not always a nonsense. There are valid reasons why the executive should not produce documents to this chamber, and I would be hypocritical to assert that on every return to order there is an obligation of government and the executive to produce every document. An example is national security. If I had been asked, when I was Minister for Defence, to produce certain documents, I would have refused. Commercial-in-confidence is another example. Some parts of those documents might not be produced but most can be produced with some sort of blacking out or whiting out system.One of the more ridiculous returns to order in this chamber was the one moved at the time of Carmen Lawrence's appearance before a royal commission. The coalition opposite demanded, as a return to order, all the legal advice she had received—before the matter went through the various courts. In other words, they were saying, `We demand by resolution that you cough up your total defence so that the other side will know every legal argument you are about to put.' That is how far they went with returns to order.What we have seen as a pattern developing since 1988 is a deluge of returns to order. It seemed like a good idea at the time for the coalition but, once they got into government, suddenly they realised that you can refuse these matters—on the basis of cost, on the basis of national security, on the basis of legal advice, on the basis of commercial-in-confidence; but, worst of all, they reveal the internal workings of government. That has never been a valid excuse. The internal workings of government are probably precisely what Senator Allison is chasing, to see if the answers given by Senator Hill in this chamber and in the estimates committee are in fact accurate.We all know of the allegations that are floating around about the tactics of this government in international forums in trying to get the numbers for this particular proposition on Jabiluka. The trade-offs are there, and the Democrats are entitled to know whether those trade-offs are a result of internal discus sions in government and that their point can be proved.I know Senator Hill goes on ad nauseam saying that the Democrats are interfering overseas in international forums. If they are, I do not support them on that. I never have. Nevertheless, they have a right to know what Australia's international negotiators are up to—if it is not going to be considered on the merits of the case and it is going to be considered by a horse-trading approach.The nub of this particular matter is that I do not think Senator Hill can be censured on failure to produce documents. There is too much form on this, on both sides of the chamber, for a censure motion to have weight solely on that ground. The nub of Senator Allison's position, I think, is that Senator Hill, in writing to her, has indicated there are 12 to 13 documents, when we all know there are other documents. Then we have to jump the next hurdle. Did Senator Hill deliberately mislead Senator Allison in this regard, or was it just his interpretation of what he needed to provide? Frankly, we on this side of the chamber are going to find it very hard to judge. Going into the mind of anyone is very difficult, let alone the mind of a politician. So we will find it hard to judge what Senator Hill's motivation was in these particular circumstances.What is the remedy available to this chamber if indeed a minister will not produce documents? We can call him a naughty boy, we can censure him—it has the same effect. When this question came up when Labor was in government, the coalition readily embraced the idea of gagging a minister for not producing the documents. I hope those on that side of the chamber remember that. That would have had two effects: one, it would have been massively undemocratic and probably unconstitutional; two, there would have been a rush of ministers not to produce documents so they could get gagged and not turn up to question time and we would have had a free ride. You cannot do that. There is actually no remedy, that I know of, for not producing documents. There is not a punishment, there is not a device in this chamber, that will ever effectively overcome that.One of the suggestions often put forward is that we give these documents to a third person—I think that has been done in the past—and the third person clears them or otherwise. I think that is a great idea, depending whether the third person agrees with me or the government. And finding someone in a position to make those judgments is not easy, especially in specialised areas, because you really have to have someone that has knowledge of those areas and, if they have knowledge of those areas, they probably have views, principles and biases that we cannot detect before they make the judgment.It is not a case of giving it to a judge or a judicial officer, because in many of the aspects they will not be able to judge how our foreign relations are affected one way or the other. So we do have difficulty in using that as a device. I cannot see an answer to it. Certainly, I think the Clerk was right to allude that the only answer is a political one. And I think the only alternative given to Senator Allison was to move a censure. She does not have another or mechanism for trying to get these documents.In assessing whether Senator Hill has in fact transgressed here, you have to look at his history. That runs both ways, I have to say. Is Senator Hill someone we would describe as committed to transparency and openness of government? Certainly, when it came to the federation grants, he has not been at all transparent with this chamber or the estimates committee. What do we know? We know that the department scored points on these more minor federation grants. You could score up to 24, I think, and 15 was the pass mark. We know 12 projects were granted from those below the pass mark, and many of the projects that went beyond the pass mark were scrapped. But we are not told the names of the projects, because it might hurt the feelings of the people who did not score 15 points.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—It might reveal which electorates they were for.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is funny you should mention that, because when we go through the grants, there is the odd little $1 million or $2 million grant dotted around marginal electorates in a decision approved by the Prime Minister after he announced the election but before he issued the writs—legal but not necessarily moral. It is not outrageous. It is not as bad as some of the other grants we have seen—just nibbling around the edges. But we can never judge that, we can never assert that, because Senator Hill does not bring the information forward.Then we have the second case, which I have been pursuing for 18 months. How could the Prime Minister of this country accuse Mr Beazley and Mr Evans of being perverters of the course of justice only on the basis of released documents from the Prime Minister's office basically saying they did not act in accordance with the Solicitor-General of the day? But, funnily enough, two documents did not appear. And when they appeared a few months later, they showed that Mr Beazley and Mr Evans acted on the advice of the Solicitor-General. That is not Senator Hill's fault, but he represents PM&C. For 18 months I have been trying to find out who disappeared these documents. We know they were in the Attorney-General's office. We know they were taken to the Prime Minister's office. But neither will tell us who delivered them and who received them.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—We can guess.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You can have a rough guess. I do not think Senator Hill has responsibly pursued that issue. However, on the other hand, to be fair, when you sit at estimates committees, Senator Hill tends to be one of the more cooperative ministers. He is one of the very few I have seen, when a public servant gives an evasive or what Senator Hill would perceive as a possibly inaccurate response, who actually turns around, qualifies the question, and forces them to answer properly. Compare that with Senator Kemp, who just goes on with evasion—the inanities of it, the waffle. Senator Hill, by comparison, is just a pane of glass of transparency compared with Senator Kemp.So when we have to judge Senator Hill on the question of transparency, I acknowledge on the record that there are arguments both ways—that at times he has shown much more leadership in this area than most of his colleagues. But in some instances loyalty to the government and cover-up of government activity have overcome this natural tendency towards transparency. Again, in this case, I think he has been lured to the dark side of the force and he is basically covering up a lot of these documents.I suppose the most interesting phrase I saw in all this was Senator Hill's statement that goodwill works both ways. It only dawned on me that what that really means is, `If you rat on the Labor Party, I will make you Deputy President.' That is the sort of goodwill working both ways. It just dawned on me that that was what the definition was.I think it is true to say the Labor Party has been a bit equivocal on this censure motion, because it comes to such narrow issues. As Senator Faulkner said, it is not an open and shut case. As Senator Bolkus indicated, only on balance—it is an on-balance decision—will we support this censure motion.Obviously, other people take censures far more seriously than I do in terms of a black mark against someone's name. As I reiterate, most of the censure motions have been moved in this chamber by those sitting on the other side of the chamber. In fact, Senator Hill himself has managed to move two since he got into government, which is one more censure motion than the Labor Party has moved in the same time. He has managed to do both on general business days so he does not waste any government time. With one of them you could at least say they managed to mount an argument; with the other one they were totally outmanoeuvred and had to withdraw in a very bedraggled manner. The last thing I would like to say on this motion is that I remember the last censure motion.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Will I leave now?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Woodley the gagger interrupts me. They gagged the last censure motion. It is a pity, Senator Hill and co., that you do not have another 10 speakers, because then we could join you, gag this debate and ease the pain from you. But I think I am about the last speaker, apart from those who will sum up. I hope the Democrats have learned their lesson from their previous undemocratic behaviour. I had a great speech ready to defend Senator Bolkus—we think we would have cleared him had I delivered it—and you unmercifully interrupted, gagged us, and Senator Bolkus's reputation was most unfairly traduced by this chamber. So I hope you have learnt that lesson. And I hope Senator Hill, when he looks at these returns to order, will apply criteria fairly in future and not use the standard excuses. I reiterate: there are some reasons for not producing documents to this chamber—I have to acknowledge that. I did so in government and I have to do so in opposition. But they must be valid, otherwise a minister deserves censure.17:52:003175Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to begin where Senator Ray left off. Actually, we did not realise that Senator Ray was going to speak; the reason that we gagged was that we thought Senator Cooney was going to speak, and that was what we were really worried about. However, let me refer to what Senator Ray said about the whole issue of whether or not the Democrats are interfering in our reputation overseas, which I think was one of the major points that Senator Hill made. I support my leader in saying that none of the documents that were given to us on 8 March 1999 have been sent overseas. However, I am not necessarily accepting all of the arguments given by Senator Ray about the problems that he sees with that. I certainly do not accept Senator Hill's arguments about international forums.I did not want to mention Senator Boswell today because I do cause him some pain from time to time but, really, when he comes in here and wants to talk about the Democrats destroying Australia's reputation overseas by appealing to international forums, I have to remind him, and also this chamber, that this government grovels at the feet of international trade forums. When it comes to global free trade this government is prepared to use the World Trade Organisation to destroy Australian rural industry, to send farmers into poverty, to suck people out of rural communities and dump them in capital cities. So the government does not mind at all using international forums when it comes to global trade. But when it comes to environmental issues, or issues of human rights, we are told, `No, you cannot use international forums to seek justice that you cannot obtain in Australia. You must hide in your cupboard because we do not want anybody looking over our shoulder if we are destroying the environment or if we are trashing human rights in this country.'We got the same response from the Attorney-General when the World Heritage Bureau's appointed mission—a very high level mission—came to this country and wanted to raise issues about our treatment of the environment as we got in the last few days when the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had some criticism of Australia. That report was also rubbished by this government.The government is quite happy to have international forums destroy rural industry in this country, but it does not want international forums looking over our shoulder when it comes to the destruction of the environment or of human rights. I think that this government, and particularly Senator Hill, expresses very selective outrage about international forums and about Australia's reputation overseas. Then of course we heard that what the Democrats are doing may damage Australia's interests or Australia's reputation. I ask the Australian people and this government: is it in Australia's interests to release any further uranium for either the nuclear power industry or nuclear weapon production, which is one of the by-products of the nuclear power industry?If it is in the interests of Aboriginal people to allow this mine to go ahead, why are traditional Aboriginal people today—not in the 1980s or early 1990s—so implacably opposed to it? Senator Boswell said that Aboriginal people ought to understand how beneficial this mine will be to them. That is typical of this government. Like they tell most Australians, they are very quick to tell Aboriginal people, `We will tell you what you want, because we really know what is best for you. Whether or not you think it is good for you, we think it is good for you therefore you will accept what we give you.' That is the attitude of this government.Let me now deal with the issue of the bypassing of this parliament by this government. That is now an art form entered into by this government. In political academia it is referred to as the corporate state. In the corporate state, the idea that elected representatives should be the ones who make decisions is seen as an outmoded idea because in the corporate state you do not deal with the parliament, you deal with hand-picked power elites and you ignore the parliament whenever possible. One of the reasons why in Western democracies ordinary people are so alienated by the political process is that the growth of the corporate state in Western democracies has gone on apace.With this government, we again see the use of the executive government to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. This government really believes that to debate issues in the parliament is an inefficient and time consuming way of running the country; not only that, but at times the parliament may make decisions which are contrary to the wishes of the government. The only problem of course is that what I am describing as what the government is avoiding is in fact what democracy is all about.The government believes that it should consult with and give information only to the people of whom it approves. It does not matter that, on 3 October last year, this country of Australia elected a whole parliament. They believe not just that members of the government were elected but that the people of Australia should have voted for the cabinet because they are the only people who ought to be available to discuss issues and to make decisions. That is what we mean by the corporate state, and the corporate state is alive and well in this country.Let me take issue with the idea of key documents. The minister has said that he has released key documents. I am afraid, Minister, that this falls into much the same area as the term `core promises'. We now have key documents and core promises. Again, this reinforces this government's lack of accountability. This government has raised avoiding parliamentary scrutiny to an art form. Let me give you a few examples, one of which at least involves this minister. When we sought documents to examine the whole Hinchinbrook development and decisions made by the minister about that, it was like pulling teeth, although in the end we did get those documents, and I thank the minister for that.There have been a number of occasions when this government has simply defied the order of the Senate. Another occasion was when the Senate demanded documents that would reveal how the government made the decision to withdraw funding from the Australian Superannuants and Pensioners Association. Again the Senate passed a resolution asking for those documents and again the government said, `No, thank you, we really don't need you to be involved in that decision; we have made it. We have sent the pensioners and superannuants to the wall and we don't want you to know why we did it.'I agree with something else that Senator Ray said—that it is a great shame that Senator Hill, over the past three years, has been more and more compromised by his membership of this government. I know that for years, when he was in opposition, and even at the beginning of his time as a minister in this government, most of us regarded him as a small `d' democrat and a moderate. The problem is that now we cannot tell the difference between him and the most right wing member of the government. I will leave him to work that one out.The Democrats have not moved a censure motion in the parliament for five years. That is because we do agree that it is a serious issue. We have at times supported censure motions moved by others and at times we have not supported those. I have to take exception with Senator Boswell, who asked why we had not given the minister a sufficient description of the documents we required. Let me say to Senator Boswell, and I hope he reads Hansard or listens to this debate: staff in the Democrat leader's office spent two weeks working out the categories of documents required and describing those. Today we placed on the record the names of a number of authors. I do not know how we can tell the minister any more clearly which documents are required unless we actually see them, he puts them on the table and we say we want that one, that one and that one. That is a fairly ridiculous proposition because it is arguing in a circle.Also, in terms of the debate with Senator Boswell about Aborigines and mining, I have to agree with Senator Boswell that there have been some mines where Aboriginal people have benefited. However, there have been other decisions made by mining companies, backed up by state governments, where Aboriginal people have lost considerably—and they remember that. So it is a very mixed bag when it comes to the relationship between Aboriginal people and mining companies.My colleague Senator Allison has been to Jabiluka on two occasions and she can tell you the attitude of the Aboriginal people and why it is they are now—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Why didn't she have a look last week when she was there?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—She had been twice before.BH4Woodley, Sen JohnSenator HILL—That was before the mine started.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I can assure you, Senator Hill, that Democrat senators will be visiting the mine and Jabiluka quite regularly in the future.In any case, this debate is about the ability of the parliament to hold the government accountable. I am afraid that this government does not believe in parliamentary scrutiny. That is what this debate is about and that is why the Democrats believe that this censure motion should be supported. We believe there is no other option left to us now, having spent these months trying to get the information and trying to get the minister to own up to the reasons why he has made the decisions he has made, with which I admit we disagree—there is no doubt about that—but which I believe we could have a much more intelligent debate on if only he would come clean.18:05:003177Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise comparatively briefly in this debate to support my Democrat colleagues, in particular Senator Allison in her censure motion against the minister. While Senator Ray made some interesting contributions, if only it was punishment enough—I use that word for lack of any other—for the minister to sit and hear this debate. But the Democrats take this process and the parliament much more seriously than that and think it is only in worst case scenarios and when people have openly defied an order of the Senate and the Senate processes that anyone should be censured in this way. We think it is important to bring this matter to a vote and not simply to make the minister sit and listen to speeches. Sorry, Minister, you have one more at least left to go.The censure motion arises out of the minister's refusal to table a range of documents relating to the government's representations to the World Heritage Committee. I was quite surprised to hear from the minister the motive attributed to the Democrats that we were somehow intent on demeaning Australia's reputation in the eyes of the world—that we would be sending these documents for perusal over to the other side of the world. In actual fact, my leader and Senator Woodley have both refuted this, and the documents that had been made available to us on 8 March have not been sent overseas. So that is an unfair accusation and an unfair motive for the minister to promote.But the minister still maintains that the somewhat shameful representations by this government to the World Heritage Committee are just an attempt to ensure that they are provided with the facts and the truth. How many times have we heard `the facts' and `the truth' referred to by the minister in this debate? The minister's statements that he is only interested in providing the facts and the truth to the committee have begun to look a little suspicious when he is unwilling to provide the very documents that have been requested to establish the facts and the truth of this matter.My colleague Senator Allison requested all the documents relating to the Jabiluka mine proposal since 1 October. She was provided with essentially a subset of those documents, conveniently referred to by the minister as the key documents. One of the crucial sets of documents is clearly the range of documents which relate to the workings of the Kakadu interdepartmental committee. That committee is being run out of Environment Australia, but we can only be led to believe that it has not produced any documents: no work plans, no minutes of meetings, no correspondence and no time lines. I suggest that might be a rather extraordinary committee. But there are also a number of documents of other types which the minister seems to have withheld. There are no drafts, even though drafts have previously been provided. There are no email documents and there is no legal advice. Very significantly, there are no documents relating to the spending of taxpayer funds on defending the minister's position on Jabiluka.The minister has claimed that he has not tabled any documents which he believes will affect our international relations, and Senator Allison has informed us that the minister is also not prepared to show those documents to a trusted third party. This was an option that was put to the minister by the Australian Democrats to avoid many of the concerns that he put forward about these documents, that they might in some way affect international relations. He basically rejected that option as well. Now the Jabiluka mine proposal has become an issue of international importance, thanks to the investigations of the World Heritage Committee. But it is quite odd that the minister seems to be using this embarrassment now, the fact that the eyes of the world are upon us for environmental reasons, as almost a convenient excuse for not providing the documents to the Senate after the Senate has expressly and explicitly asked for those relevant documents.We are extremely concerned that the minister is secretly destroying Australia's reputation with these heavy-handed international lobbying tactics. This is precisely what has been indicated. It has been indicated in documents leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade during the month of February, so we have every indication that may be the case. The parliament has an important and legitimate role in overseeing government activity. An order for the production of documents is one of the techniques available to ensure that the parliament is able to fulfil this role. We believe that the minister has expressly sought to avoid this responsibility to the parliament. It is a defiance that we cannot and should not take lightly in this place, and hence this censure motion.The minister for the environment is not the only minister who has been avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. Today the Democrats have also asked further questions of Senator Minchin regarding the Pangea waste dump. This is in relation to the admission by Mr Tuckey that he had met with Pangea representatives. We remain concerned that there is this ongoing and perhaps growing willingness among some government ministers to try and work around the clear intentions of the parliament to engage in scrutiny of government. In the case of Jabiluka, the documents were not requested in an attempt to create further work for the minister or his staff. They were requested, as we were entitled to do, to assist in the discharge of our responsibility to oversee the actions of the executive—a fundamental role of the Senate.I remind the Senate that the Australian Democrats regard censure as a last resort. Indeed, this is the second time in the time that I have been here that I have had to rise to speak on such a motion. I do not take it lightly, just as I do not take lightly the opportunity for the minister or the person who is the target of that particular censure to defend themselves and have a right of reply. It was a right that Senator Bolkus was able to exercise in the last censure debate, and I acknowledge that the rest of his party should have been able to exercise that right as well.We have given the minister numerous opportunities to assist us with the production of documents on this occasion, but he has chosen to remain uncooperative so as not to reveal the government's shameful behaviour on Jabiluka. We are concerned about that, we are shamed by that, but we would not be fulfilling our responsibility as a parliament, in particular as a Senate that provides a watchdog role over the workings of the executive, if we were to do anything but move this motion today.18:12:003179Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—A censure motion is a very serious matter in this chamber, or anywhere, for that matter. The Australian Democrats had three censure motions on the Notice Paper and had asked me to see whether I would agree that they be declared formal. I did not agree to that, because I believe that a censure motion should not be subject to these formal motions and voting aye or nay, and that was the end of the matter.There are multifarious notices of motion that come before this chamber almost every day of the week and there is considerable time having to be spent by me in examining the implications of those motions. Most of those notices of motion relate to political matters and policy matters. I reiterate that there is a huge amount of time involved to decide the issue one way or the other. Unfortunately, many of them do come down to my vote. It is very pleasant, I would suggest, for 90 per cent of the members of this chamber not even to know what is in those notices of motion and be able to just vote according to what their leaders say. That would be a very easy way of going about things, and I do envy the rest of the chamber, who have that ability just to say yes or no, depending on which way their leader suggests their vote should go.On this particular matter I refused formality, because a censure motion of a minister is a very serious matter. I did suggest that the person who is to be censured, if that is the wish of the Senate, is entitled to respond and to give the side of the story that that individual senator needs to provide to the chamber. I am sorry that this censure motion is directed at Senator Hill. Other honourable senators have mentioned the fact that Senator Hill has been a minister who has been meticulous when questions have been asked of bureaucrats in estimates committees. If he considers that the questions are not being properly answered, he takes action to ensure that they do respect the rights of this chamber to seek and obtain information. Personally, it does concern me that this motion is being directed towards Senator Hill.I think a number of political points—policy points—have been made in this debate about whether Jabiluka should go ahead or whether it should not go ahead. I do not approach this matter having regard to either of those matters—that is to say, the objective of the censure or the politics of Jabiluka. I have to approach this motion having regard to the right of this chamber to obtain information as requested of the executive government. That is the only issue before us.As honourable senators realise, a considerable amount of material has found its way into committee reports over the years and, indeed, into Odgers about this question of the Senate's right to obtain information by a return to order motion. I refer to the 49th and 52nd reports of the Senate Privileges Committee. I do not need to read those, but they are there. They are unanimous reports—and all-party reports—and they make it clear that the Senate has that right and can pursue that right. Odgers also makes it clear, on page 477:While the public interests and the rights of individuals may be harmed by the enforced disclosure of information, it may well be considered that, in a free state, the greater danger lies in the executive government acting as the judge in its own cause, and having the capacity to conceal its activities, and, potentially, misgovernment from public scrutiny. It may also be considered that a representative House of Parliament is the best judge of the balance of public interests.I emphasise:It may also be considered that a representative House of Parliament is the best judge of the balance of public interests.No doubt that has been included in Odgers because the claim of governments, almost invariably, is that it is against the public interest—and in this particular case there is no real difference if one examines the documentation. The minister's letter to Senator Allison talks about this matter and refers to various documents. Honourable senators will bear in mind that this Senate requested all documents from a particular date. The minister's response was to provide what were termed `key' documents. A list of documents was prepared by Environment Australia, and the decision of the minister was not to table 13 documents which are included in that list. The list of those documents was provided. The minister says in the letter:Documents 1 to 12 all constitute internal advice to me from my department or internal correspondence with other ministers. The Senate has, on numerous occasions, recognised that there are categories of advice which relate to the internal workings of government and which should not be disclosed on the basis of public interest immunity.Quite frankly, over a number of years there has been consideration of that matter—and I have participated in these debates—but, in the end, the decisions have been made by the Senate, and it is a most unusual event for a minister to be censured.There have been occasions when the Senate has been helped in its consideration. Senator Ray was inferentially criticising a suggestion that some outside competent individual should be used as an agent by the Senate for the purpose of sifting through the documents to see whether the claim of public interest immunity by the government was sustainable. I will mention for Senator Ray's edification that that suggestion was made by none other than Gareth Evans, I think in 1982. It was the former Senator Gareth Evans, the now the Hon. Mr Gareth Evans in the House of Representatives, who made the suggestion that a retired judge of the Victorian Supreme Court ought to be the agent.There was another occasion, I cannot remember it exactly, where the question of the commercial-in-confidence status of the documentation was up for consideration. On that occasion an agent was used by the Senate, namely, the Auditor-General, to consider a number of documents which the government refused to table to see whether they should not be tabled in the public interest because of their commercial-in-confidence status.I am not going to delay this discussion much further. There are a number of other examples which have not been adverted to during the debate. Suffice it to say that it is very important for our right as a chamber to demand documents. In this particular case, unless the government can see its way clear to give a better explanation than it has done thus far of its claim of public interest immuni ty—by way of having, for example, the Senate appoint an agent for that purpose—and if it still feels that it is its executive prerogative to hide behind that claim, I think there is no alternative, unfortunately, than for the Senate to censure the minister for not acting in accordance with its resolution.18:15:003181Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—in reply—I will reply very briefly. One of the major disappointments of this debate has been the way in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the only other speaker for the government have not addressed the central issue. They have talked about the pros and cons of the mine. The Democrats did not do that and neither did any other speaker in this chamber. It is quite a contrast to look at the substance of the contributions to the debate and compare them with what the minister said. It would be tempting to challenge some of those statements made about the mine, but I do not want to do that today. I want to pick up on a couple of points the minister made when he did finally get around to the question of documents.The minister said that there was no need for us to call for these documents, that there had been a lengthy session in the estimates hearings, as indeed there was, over this issue and that information was given to the Democrats at the time. One of the central parts of this debate and one of the main reasons why the Democrats called for the Senate to consider the return to order was this question of the government's activities overseas. The persuasive way in which the government was working with member countries of UNESCO in order to get them to change their minds about placing Kakadu on the endangered list was quite central. For that reason it was something that I concentrated on during the estimates hearings. Let me give honourable senators an example of the exchanges that took place. I asked the bureaucrats and the minister about their trips overseas. When I asked about Mr Bamsey, in particular, a senior bureaucrat who has been doing quite a lot of travel for this purpose, the minister said:I have said that I am not going to give details of communications to other governments. I had asked where Mr Bamsey had been. The minister said that he had been overseas himself and I asked him if, when he was in London, he had taken up this issue there. He said:If I did, it is my business.That was the tenor of the discussion during the estimates hearings. That is really the main reason the Democrats moved in the way that they did. We were not getting satisfaction from the estimates hearings and we felt that these were very important documents to have at our disposal to find out exactly what the government was up to.The minister says that key documents have been released, and today's contributions demonstrate very clearly that the key documents were the minister's definition of what was `key'. We have already pointed to very many documents that could have been provided, such as those produced by the many consultants who have been employed on this job. The minister says that there would be literally hundreds of pieces of paper and that the difficulties and costs of providing those to the Senate were insurmountable. I remind the minister again that already $1 million has been spent in defending this position of his over the decision on Jabiluka and that a few hundred pieces of paper on the copying machine would not amount to much in the scheme of things.Central, too, in this debate is the question of who is responsible for delivering to the Senate the documents in question. The minister is now saying as late as today that this was a matter for the department and that the department simply handed the documents over to him. I remind the minister that this order was with the minister, not with any bureaucrats or heads of departments.The letter in which the minister explained his grounds for withholding documents has been referred to a number of times today as well. The minister talks about defining or redefining, but really we have seen a backtracking and a changing of the minister's mind in terms of what constitutes reasonable grounds and what does not. That has been a very evasive technique that the minister has used—and not to good effect, because it was fairly transparent.Senator Faulkner puts the case that the coalition took the business of returns to order much more seriously when in opposition than it is doing when in government. Senator Lees points out that draft documents have been tabled in the past and also that emails are legitimate pieces of documentation and that they ought to be kept on file—and I am sure the minister knows that.The argument that a letter to the World Heritage Committee chair should not be released without the chair's okay is clearly refuted quite easily by the fact that there were many other documents released that were also addressed to the chair, and the minister gave us no indication that he had sought the permission of the chair of the World Heritage Committee in releasing them.I am suggesting to honourable senators that the government's case really does not stack up. They have tried to argue this on the basis of the intentions of the Democrats. The intentions of this side of the chamber have always been about accountability. Senator Harradine is right in saying that the only issue before us is the right of the parliament to obtain information. I will conclude on that point and I urge senators to vote for this motion. Question put: That the motion (Senator Allison's ) be agreed to.18:37:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Crowley, R. A. Crane, W.Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H.Schacht, C. C. Ellison, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Committees318231823182Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 25 March 1999, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the employment incentive and education impacts of the Government's taxation reform legislation proposals and the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system.Business3182318218:40:003182Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I think that, due to the lateness of the hour, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the urgency motion standing in my name for today.Committees31833183318318:40:003183West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I present the first report of 1999 of the Procedure Committee, relating to the use of unpublished documents in dissenting reports, the appearance of private witnesses with departmental officers, notices of motion, postponements and formal motions, and divisions.Ordered that the report be printed.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—I move:That the Senate(a) in relation to the use of unpublished documents in dissenting reports, adopts the amendment of standing order 37(2) at pages 1 and 2 of the report;(b) in relation to the appearance of private witnesses with departmental officers, adopts the views expressed by the committee at page 2 of the report; and(c) in relation to notices of motion and postponements, adopts as temporary orders ceasing to have effect at the expiration of 30 June 1999 the amendments of standing order 76(1) and 67 at page 4 of the report.I move this motion to allow the Senate to make decisions on the various recommendations in the report, on the understanding that the recommendations will be voted on separately.18:42:003183Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I support the motion that Senator West has moved. In particular I draw the attention of the Senate to those matters relating to the appearance of private witnesses with departmental officers, which are outlined on page 2 of the committee's report. The Senate will be aware that this is an issue that came about as a result of deliberations of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, which was inquiring into provisions of the unfair dismissals legislation.Concern was expressed by members of the committee that the actions of the minister in arranging for private witnesses to appear before the committee under the cloak of departmental witnesses was of course totally inappropriate and, in the judgment of many members of the committee, outside the standing orders. It was felt that this was a particularly inappropriate action to take because it was the view of the committee—and it has traditionally been the view of this Senate—that bills committees would be able to provide an opportunity to examine the witnesses that appear before the committee on the basis of the legislation that is there and in particular, when official witnesses are present, to provide opportunity for senators to question officials as to the nature and the effects of any proposed government legislation.In this particular case there were plenty of opportunities for private witnesses to appear. Just about every major employer group and many groups of individuals appeared before the committee to provide the committee with the views of a range of people about the nature of this particular legislation. However, when it came to the question of the department's witnesses appearing in the very limited period of time that was allocated for consideration of departmental witnesses, officers from the department turned up with four private citizens in tow. What was disturbing was that the department had taken upon itself to fund the expenses of those witnesses to appear before the committee to the tune of $2,268.60.What occurred was that this had been arranged as a way of providing a paid cheer squad before the committee so as to support the views of the minister, Mr Reith, and of course as part of his campaign and his leadership squabble with Mr Costello.I am deputy chair of this committee. So I can assure the Senate, and I express the view strongly, that this action was totally inappropriate and that this was a fait accompli presented to the committee by the chair of the committee, insofar as there was no private meeting of the committee to consider the witness list or to consider the appropriateness of the action. The secretariat, under the direction of the chair, at no time took into account that these witnesses should not appear with departmental witnesses.Clearly, we are not opposed to private witnesses appearing. There are provisions in the standing orders for that to occur. Furthermore, there are provisions in the standing orders for expenses to be paid upon application to the committee. What you see here in these circumstances is that this arrangement was made as a direct result of the intervention of the government into the provision of witnesses before the committee.This is a serious matter. It gave us a clear insight into the way in which this government is prepared to manipulate the Public Service and squander public resources to frustrate the legitimate workings of a Senate committee. Once again, it demonstrated that, via his maverick activities, this minister, Mr Reith, is determined to push his ideological agenda on the Australian public. I think all senators should be clear that this was a sham. It was a political stunt and it was designed and instigated directly by the minister, not by the department.In the evidence at the Senate additional estimates hearing held on 10 February, the department outlined the events that led to these non-departmental witnesses appearing with the department. The minister's senior adviser, Mr Anderson, acting on the instructions of Minister Reith, approached the secretary to the department, Dr Shergold, about the appropriateness of bringing non-departmental witnesses to the hearing. Mr Anderson suggested to Dr Shergold that—and I quote Hansard—`The minister thought that this was a valuable idea.' Dr Shergold confirmed to the committee that it was his belief that it was the role of a senior public servant to provide support to his minister. So in true Yes, Minister style, Dr Shergold agreed that he thought it was appropriate for the department to pay for and bring non-departmental witnesses to attend the hearing.We understand that under this government senior public servants worry more about collecting performance bonuses and having their contracts renewed than adhering to Westminster traditions or the principles of public administration. We have seen the steps that this government will take to frustrate the will of the Senate. In this episode, it is quite clear that the minister is intent upon misusing public trust in one way or another.The entire episode represents a direct intervention from what I say is a maverick minister; I do not believe that these views are widely held within the government. Clearly, it is not appropriate that they should be. It is apparent that this minister is quite prepared to pursue the strategy of `whatever it takes', as we saw with the dock dispute and the various matters which are still actions before various courts in this country. I will not go into the conspiracy matters that relate to those. If it is left unchecked there will be no guarantees in the future about the way in which governments will use the resources of their departments—and any other attempts that they might make—to manipulate Senate committees, to frustrate and ultimately thwart legitimate bases for Senate inquiries into what is the work of government through the various bills that it is putting before this parliament.What this report draws to our attention is that Public Service witnesses and private witnesses have different roles, and those roles should not be confused. It says that it is inappropriate for actions to be taken by departments in this manner and for expenses to be paid by the department without advising the committee that such actions have in fact been taken.This report allows for the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy President of the Senate, to be allowed to confer with all departmental secretaries and advise them of the views of the Senate on this matter. Hopefully, through this action, we can prevent this sort of behaviour occurring again. Hopefully, it will send a clear message to all ministers in this government that it is not their job to interfere in the work of Senate committees in this way. There is ample opportunity for citizens to appear before committees and provide their views. In this case, the witnesses who appeared were people who did not currently have matters before Commonwealth jurisdictions: some were making complaints about state matters, some were involved in cases that were currently before courts of law and others, of course, paid their witnesses, but they had nothing to say when they got here.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! It now being 6.50 p.m., we will proceed to the consideration of government documents.Documents3185318518:50:003185Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The Australia-India Council is chaired by an eminent Australian, the Hon. Jim Kennan QC, who was for a time Attorney-General in the state of Victoria and Leader of the Opposition in that state. He is someone who, since his retirement from politics, has played an important role at a business level in building stronger commercial and other ties between Australia and India.India is an important nation for Australia from a trade point of view. It is not a nation that ranks highly in the order of Australia's most senior trading partners. It is a nation in which a large part of the English justice system, civil service and structure of law has been transplanted with, of course, local refinements. Australian business people feel at home in India because the legal requirements which they must meet are not at all strange to them and the circumstances of doing business are quite compatible with those of this nation. Despite those things, the business relationship has not been strong in the past.However, the relationship is growing. During the period of the previous Labor government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade brought down a major report on Australia-India relations with a view to developing further strategies to bolster and improve commercial contacts. Since then there has been an initiative to involve Australia with nations in the Indian Ocean littoral region to examine and promote further trade issues.I think it is a great shame that this business relationship has not flourished more strongly. It is not a question of blame; it is a matter of observation. A number of things can be done to represent the opportunities for Australian entrepreneurs in India more strongly than has been done in the past. Certainly, the Australia-India Council is a mechanism for that. I acknowledge and applaud the work that it has done in promoting closer relations between our two countries.As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has inquired most recently into the detonation of nuclear devices in India and Pakistan. While I understand the committee's report has not yet been tabled, it is close to finalisation. The relationship between India and Australia has become more strained now than it was before those tests were undertaken. A view has been put from the Indian side that Australia overreacted in expressing its protest and opposition to those nuclear tests when they occurred.Whatever the truth of that assertion is, nonetheless there was bipartisan support for the opposition expressed to nuclear weapons testing when it did occur. But there now seems to be a chance, while maintaining a principled position on nuclear weapons, to pursue actively and sensibly stronger commercial and industrial ties. Indeed, by doing that at a commercial business level, there would be greater strength and acceptability for any views that Australia might put at a Foreign Affairs level or at the level of the nuclear issue.We have a strong sporting tradition with India. We do not have a strong business tradition. I would applaud any steps that the Indian side would take to open up market access for Australian goods and services. But there is no replacement for Australian business people going to the subcontinent, trying to establish business contacts themselves and building a mutually beneficial trade between our two nations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment318510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.318618:57:003186Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise briefly tonight to beg the Senate's indulgence. I have received two lots of petitions which are not precisely in the normal format. The first is entitled `Stop uranium mining—care for the future'. The other also relates to uranium mining in Australia and the United Nations World Heritage Committee. The petition states:. . . that the current mining operation at Jabiluka cease until agreement has been reached with the World Heritage Commission on it's safety in respect to the Kakadu national park.The petition continues:We also request that a referendum or other suitable poll, be conducted on whether Uranium should be mined and it's waste stored or buried in Australia.The referendum should include the opinion of the youth of Australia.The petition contained 1,495 signatures. The earlier petition contained 39. I seek leave of the Senate to table the petitions.Leave granted.318618:58:003186Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on a subject I regard as extremely important to aged care residents and the nurses who care for them. In particular, I advise the Senate of a serious incident that is happening in Queensland at the moment. I am sure most senators would be interested to know whether this is also happening in their own state.On 14 January 1999, nurses working for the Queensland aged care provider Churches of Christ received a letter advising that the majority of nursing staff are to be reclassified as aged care workers at its Fairhaven, Maryborough and Hervey Bay facilities. This will come into effect on 29 March 1999, and nurses are yet to be told how their roles will be affected after that date.The Churches of Christ organisation has declared that a nursing model is no longer to be used to care for high-care nursing home residents and that a `hostel' service delivery model will be used. According to the Queensland nurses union, not only will resident care be jeopardised but also nurses' conditions of employment will decline dramatically.The actions of the Churches of Christ organisation are in direct contravention of the Aged Care Principles 1997—Quality of Care, part 3, item 3.8, Nursing Services, which states:Initial and ongoing assessment, planning and management of care for residents, carried out by a registered nurse. Nursing services carried out by a registered nurse, or other professional appropriate to the service (eg. Medical practitioner, stoma therapist, speech pathologist, physiotherapist or qualified practitioner from a palliative care team).The Aged Care Principles have been flagrantly breached by the Churches of Christ organisation. The reclassification of current employees has implications that will be felt by residents in nursing homes across Queensland for many years to come. Essentially, the employer has used a rebuilding and construction program at Fairhaven Maryborough and the relocation of 20 high care residents to its Fairhaven Hervey Bay facility as the justification for the reclassification of its nursing staff.The reclassification undertaken by the Churches of Christ organisation involves the abolition of the nursing classifications of `enrolled nurse' and `assistant in nursing'. These nurses will be reclassified as `aged care workers'. Fundamentally, the effect of this is to transfer their entitlements from the Nurses Aged Care Interim Award—State to two non-nursing certified agreements. Indeed, the job description of an aged care worker is identical to that of an AIN. Hence, the reclassification in itself is nothing but a sham. It is a shabby, transparent exercise designed specifically to cut wages and conditions and to remove the professional status and identity of nurses.The reclassification for AINs will mean a loss of wages, shift penalties, one week's annual leave and their title as `assistant in nursing'. For enrolled nurses the picture is particularly bleak. They will lose up to $3,500 each year in wages in addition to a loss of shift penalties, annual leave and job title. Even more devastating are the implications for the long-term career prospects of the nurses. If the enrolled nurses remain employed as aged care workers for three years, they will lose their level of entitlement and, if they ever return to work as enrolled nurses, they will be on the lowest classification and pay point. Any absence from designated nursing employment for five years or more will result in the loss of their licence to practise.Clearly, the Churches of Christ organisation sees no need to retain skilled nursing staff to care for people in their nursing homes, despite the specifications of the aged care principles. They are using the current legislation to downgrade their staff so they can make a fast buck.The long-term implications of the reclassification are even more frightening for residents. As their current nurses gradually leave to avoid deregistration, these elderly people will have to rely on staff who are inadequately trained and unqualified to care for their needs. This situation is an absolute disgrace, both from the nurses' and the residents' perspective.As senators would know, the work that the nurses currently undertake is absolutely vital and fundamental to providing a decent level of care for residents in these facilities. Nursing home residents in particular are dependent on their nurses to help them with the basic activities of daily life. These duties will still need to be attended to after 29 March, but we can assume that nurses' time will then be constrained by additional duties, primarily domestic. If this is not the case and nurses are to carry on as usual, how can the Churches of Christ organisation justify the reclassification of their roles?After the reclassification, standards of care for residents in these facilities will decline rapidly. Evidence provided to the Queensland nurses union has revealed that nursing duties will subsequently be undertaken by people with no knowledge, skills or training to do this work. An illiterate domestic who has worked 30 years as a cleaner will be undertaking nursing duties. A domestic with 15 years experience as a cleaner will also be undertaking nursing duties. A former receptionist-administrative officer will be undertak ing nursing duties at the Hervey Bay facility. I find it particularly disturbing that the employer has not even initiated any training for these staff who will, in effect, be expected to work as qualified nurses.Staff have also been advised that they will be required to administer medications without the proper authority. If this is not a frightening enough prospect, these people are not even to be supervised by the remaining registered nurses. The employer has advised that registered nurses will work only as team members without any authority to delegate, direct or supervise the care that has always been the work of nursing staff. This is absolutely ludicrous and a potential for disaster.The union has also been advised that the ongoing assessment, planning and management of care for residents will now be undertaken by non-registered nursing staff. This action is in direct contravention of the Quality of Care Amendment Principles, clause 3.8, which specifies that such duties must be undertaken by a registered nurse. These principles were established to protect residents and must be upheld if these people are to maintain any quality of life.It is distressing that we are now faced with a situation where the quality of care being provided to nursing home residents is being compromised. Aged care in Australia should never be allowed to regress to the situation before 1984, as highlighted at the time by the Giles report. However, this government has presided over legislative changes that are already making these scenes a reality.The reclassification of nursing staff by the Churches of Christ organisation will no doubt be replicated all over the country if the government refuses to intervene. We will have residents receiving injections from people who cannot explain why they are giving them. No doubt there will be many more instances of neglect, while a lack of proper planning will mean that services decline even further in the long term.The government was warned of these consequences during the debate when this bill was before the Senate. The accommodation bonds were introduced to ensure that facilities and services in nursing homes could be improved and brought up to scratch, but it is becoming obvious that certain unscrupulous organisations are now flouting the very safeguards put in place to protect residents. All they want to do is take the money and run.The Minister for Aged Care must act now to amend this legislation; otherwise, the role of nurses in aged care facilities will be removed forever. If this is allowed to occur, Australia's aged care sector will once again become a source of misery for residents, bringing shame on the government and the wider community.318819:08:003188Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I would like to talk tonight about two roundtables that I recently convened in South Australia for indigenous women. One was held in Adelaide and the other in Port Augusta, and there were around 30 women at each of them. They were the latest in a series of women's roundtables that I have held in South Australia over last 18 months or so, and they have provided me with a very valuable opportunity to listen to women's views and their priorities and to assist with appropriate policy advice.These sessions provide an opportunity for useful exchanges of information but they also provide me with some very special memories, particularly of women with multicultural backgrounds and indigenous women. Some very important themes emerged from my two roundtables, which I would like to share tonight. In each of the stories shared, mothers figured as an important focus for life. Sadly, in many cases they were the only known parent.There is a strong determination to achieve for their communities, a need to provide a positive future for their children and their grandchildren, and a need to break the cycle of family violence and welfare dependency. They want to raise and nurture strong children who are not crippled by the destructive cycle of unemployment and substance abuse.These are women who know the importance of working with young people, because they know that in the early years education and opportunity provide a foundation for a chance to work, a chance to own their own home and a chance to live a healthy life. These are commendable goals for every family and for all mothers who hope for a better life for their children and a better future for their grandchildren. Our government is working with these families to tackle the tough issues, to improve employment opportunities and to focus on the causes of family violence.I was particularly pleased to hear from Senator Herron that a model unit to deal with family violence is to be established in Port Augusta, with the help of legal and community organisations and Indigenous Legal Services. The unit will open later this year to offer legal and other support for these families. Further funding of $18,000 from the Partnerships Program will be spent in my state of South Australia to provide resources for indigenous family violence workers, educational resources for children and resources for communities to promote nonviolent behaviour.The problems of violence and alcohol abuse, sadly, are often linked and bring about a deterioration of family life. I was pleased to learn that Minister Herron has asked ATSIC to give close attention to the ways in which it can address family violence, as part of a review being undertaken to see that each of these programs is working as effectively and as efficiently as possible. Of course, men and women will be consulted directly about the best ways to develop new initiatives, remembering that, generally speaking, women and children are the victims. I was also pleased to learn from these women about a level of support for mandatory counselling for those convicted of family violence, in the same way as some other offenders are counselled. There is no doubt that breaking this destructive cycle will fundamentally improve the quality of family life.Education leading to a worthwhile job and the sense of purpose that accompanies it is the goal of all our young people, whoever they are. But literacy skills have proved difficult to achieve for some of our young indigenous men and women. This was an issue again raised by many of the mothers at my roundtable. I am very proud to say that at Woodville High School in South Australia young indigenous students have been able to achieve a 100 per cent success rate in an outstandingly successful program known as Scaffolding Literacy. At the school's Wiltja annexe, more than 50 students have been participating in the program, which has raised the reading skill level of those students by one percentage profile—a very significant achievement.All colleagues at my roundtables will be reassured by the news that an extra $885,000 has been allocated by Dr Kemp to extend this program, so increasing the number of young indigenous men and women who will enhance their chances in the work force using these improved literacy skills. This program will become the backbone of the National Indigenous Literacy Strategy that will be announced by Dr Kemp later this year.Caring for our elderly is important to all Australians, and it is a very important issue for indigenous people who are frequently living far away from their country. Our government's Aboriginal aged care strategy recognises the special needs of older indigenous people, especially in the planning and location of new aged care places. It incorporates the importance of family and community involvement in the caring process. There are 70 operating or planned services for older indigenous people, many of them in the remote communities where they have lived all of their lives, with facilities for up to 15 clients in each. As part of my visit to Port Augusta last Friday I was very privileged to see briefly in Davenport the Ummeewarra mission for the aged community. Six projects in South Australia receive recurrent annual funding and provide a range of care for residential and community clients across my state.The indigenous women who shared their stories and their concerns with me in South Australia last week share the priorities and the goals of all of us: family security and stability, their own home, a stable income, and job prospects for their children and grandchildren. I was very privileged to take part in this first consultation as part of my round table series, and I look forward very much to undertaking further round tables with these women and their colleagues in other parts of South Australia over the next few months. There is no doubt that the trust and confidence that those people showed in me to talk through with me the priorities they have for their family lives was something I felt very privileged to receive. I look forward very much to undertaking more in the series.318919:15:003189Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise tonight to address what I regard as the very important issue of equity in higher education. I noted with interest yesterday the announcement of my colleague the Hon. Dr David Kemp, releasing the Equity in Higher Education study. The study, produced by the Higher Education Division of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, presents information relating to the participation rates in higher education of groups in the community and, in particular, some from disadvantaged backgrounds.It is mainly in relation to this important issue of equity and how we go about ensuring maximum equitable access to higher education that I wish to speak this evening. The report on this occasion looks at the progress of indigenous students, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people from rural and isolated backgrounds, women in non-traditional courses, and people with a disability.Statistics from each university in Australia in relation to these groups are provided and rated in relation to four key equity performance indicators: access, participation, success and retention. Whilst the report relates to 1997 statistics, it also contains comparative figures for the period 1991 to 1997 in relation to participation.The report notes that whilst the success and retention rates of indigenous students remain a cause for concern—a fact which the minister specifically noted in his press statement—`other equity groups, particularly women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds, have made significant progress'.Of specific note is the participation of women in non-traditional fields of study, which has risen in all areas and now exceeds the 40 per cent mark in most academic areas. The participation of women in higher degrees by course work and research has also risen over that period. It is interesting to note that female NESB students enter nontraditional areas of study at a much higher rate than is the case for other female students. Overall, women are making progress in most fields of academic study although they are still underrepresented in areas such as computer and information sciences, mathematics, physical sciences and physics, whilst continuing to be overrepresented in food science and home economics.At the University of Western Sydney, the university which attracts many of my constituents in that area, 38.2 per cent of commencing agriculture students, 32.1 per cent of architecture students, 7.4 per cent of engineering students, 48.2 per cent of business and economic students, and 38.5 per cent of science students are women.The most encouraging thing about these statistics is how well they compare to other universities, especially some of the more established universities around the country. For example, in relation to the access of women to business and economic fields, measured as a proportion of commencing students who are women, UWS actually outperforms both the University of Sydney and the University of Melbourne. In other fields of academia, the University of Western Sydney matches such historical universities and compares very well.When I last spoke in the Senate to make mention of the University of Western Sydney, I referred to statistics gathered in their intake survey. The survey indicated that much of the UWS intake comprises first generation students and that many lived in the Greater Western Sydney region. Like students in the areas researched in the equity in education report, students at UWS are benefiting from the expanding opportunities available on Australian university campuses as a result of government support for universities in this country. As Minister Kemp pointed out yesterday, in 1999 the operating grant per fully funded student on Australian campuses was $11,596—higher in constant dollar terms than it was when the government came to office in 1996. The minister pointed out that not only is this level of funding per student higher but that there are also more fully funded places available, with 13,000 more undergraduate positions on Australian campuses this year than were available before 1996. I was recently honoured to be invited by the University of Western Sydney Nepean's Centre for Academic Development and Flexible Learning to launch the Women in Research Seminar Series entitled Women and non-traditional research: the alternative trek. I value my relationship with the university very highly and was pleased to have been invited to this launch. Both the contributors—Jean Callaghan, Janice Withnall, Barbara Beale, Lynda Jarvis and Diana Bloom—and the editors—Nicola Lengkeek and Associate Professor Elizabeth Deane—put an enormous amount of time and effort into the publication, which offers an insight into a very interesting area of higher education.Each of the essays contained in the book offers a unique perspective on areas of interest and issues of great difference. In the introduction to the book, Nicola Lengkeek and Elizabeth Deane state that research is so much more than the sum total of grants. I think they are absolutely correct. The contribution that is made by the collective outcome of universities and academia in Australia is crucial to our communities, whether it is immediately visible, tangible or not.Last year I had the opportunity and honour to meet the President of Ireland, Her Excellency Mary McAleese, on her visit to Australia. In a speech she made at a breakfast with many of Sydney's leading business and community women she made the point that a society is not the sum total of just its economy or just its government; that a healthy society benefits enormously from the emergence of a strong and diverse arts community or sports community and youth community, and of course, from an active and vibrant academic community.In this regard, work such as that contained in the book launched is highly valuable. To me, the fact that this work celebrates the role of female academics makes it even more important. These essays, which are fascinating, offered an insight—and although the likelihood of me being immediately involved in music performance or nursing might be small, I think there are parallels with the jobs we do as members of parliament—into the day-to-day work of these women and others involved in research.I read each of the essays very carefully and, whilst I do not wish to single one out, I want to briefly refer to Janice Withnall's essay. She refers to her personal motto that `we have to be perceived and received to succeed'. She goes on to say:People fear the unknown, they fear change and they fear difference. Fear is a very strong emotion, one that we must register and deal with to succeed.In their own way, each of these essays highlights that point, and whether through dealing with personal fear, or the fear of others, women who choose to take a path untrodden by any before them do help to make it easier for those of us who follow.I note briefly that this evening I and, I am sure, a number of other members of the Senate and the House will be attending a dinner held by the National Foundation of Australian Women to mark the anniversary in this parliament of the Hon. Kathy Sullivan MP, the member for Moncrieff in Queensland. It marks her service in the parliament, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. She is the longest-serving woman in the House of Representatives and next Monday she will be the longest-serving woman ever in the parliament. I think that is a milestone for which she is due enormous credit.It is crucially important to acknowledge the importance of education in giving women, and others, the necessary tools to forge a new path or to take the `alternative trek' as the UWS book terms it. That is where the link between academia and politics becomes more evident: through the promotion of knowledge and understanding, both have a key role within Australian society. Sometimes one is more productive than the other; nevertheless it is a key role. I understand that the University of Western Sydney has forwarded a copy of the book to the Parliamentary Library, and I recommend that senators take the opportunity to have a look at the essays contained in it. They provide a valuable insight into an important area that is often difficult to benefit from in any other way.Finally, I want to briefly comment on the particular campus of the University of Western Sydney at which the book was launched. When I have spoken about the work of the University of Western Sydney, I have pointed out the historical nature of the campus. It is fortuitous that a book on women in research was launched near what was the former female orphanage on the banks of the Parramatta River, Australia's first purpose built orphanage and Australia's oldest two-storey brick building. When Governor Macquarie laid the foundation stone of the orphanage in 1813, he could not possibly have imagined what its future held in this regard.It is also interesting to note that the presence of the orphanage on UWS Nepean campus means that UWS Nepean now claims for itself the honour of the nation's oldest university site, an honour that I am sure the University of Sydney had always imagined was well within its keeping. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the work of the University of Western Sydney, and of universities across the country, in addressing access and equity issues for Australian students.319119:25:003191Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I do not normally speak on the adjournment but I could not help but notice this week the publicity that was given to former Prime Minister Keating and his piggery investments. I do not intend to pass judgment on what the former Prime Minister did but I want to raise a couple of concerns and mention a few facts.Those of us who were here at the time will remember—I think Senator West would remember—the continual querying by former Senator Michael Baume of the former Treasurer's, and then Prime Minister's, deal ings. When looking back through the Hansard, I was amazed to find that his first contribution on the matter was on 1 June 1992. It certainly does not seem that long ago, but it is almost seven years ago that Michael Baume stood up in this place and drew our attention to the fact that the former Prime Minister had declared when he was still the Treasurer that he had shares in Euphron Pty Ltd, a company which had interests in a piggery and a refrigeration fabrication business.Of course, that started the saga of Michael Baume reporting to this place on a regular basis and bringing to our attention, and to the attention of the government of the day and the people of Australia, matters that were going on which he believed the Prime Minister of the country should not be involved in. For his trouble, Senator Baume was the butt of a terrible amount of abuse. He was not just abused in the parliament, but his efforts in trying to bring to the attention of the Australian parliament what is now proving to be a very curious set of circumstances were rewarded with continual abuse from members on the other side, particularly former Senator Evans. Even in the media, we had people such as Laurie Oakes and Alan Ramsay saying that there was no evidence of what Senator Baume was bringing forward and that it was unsubstantiated muckraking.The last time that Senator Baume addressed this place, on 26 June 1996, he put together a complete history of what he had brought before the Senate, and there is very little difference between what he said then and what appeared on 60 Minutes last Sunday evening. I believe the only reason the media have picked it up now is because Big Al blew the whistle. There have been plenty of occasions when good investigative journalists could at least have had a go at doing something with this. Of course, there were some early attempts to report on this but they soon closed down when the former Prime Minister made some of his famous Sunday phone calls.In fact, when a journalist—Michael Gordon—tried to bring some attention to this matter he was moved on, or out of Canberra, for a brief period. On 18 June 1992 Michael Baume drew the Senate's attention to the fact that Brown and Hatton and the former Prime Minister had some associations with Danpork. No action was taken. On 24 June 1992 Michael Baume brought to the attention of the Senate an article by Michael Gordon, I believe it was, which had appeared in the Sunday Age. We were informed that the former Prime Minister, on that Sunday, let it be known that he was not very happy about what was going on.Looking through the documents here I find he also quoted Fred Brenchley, who said that the former Prime Minister said:You have hurt me and I will hurt you; you can count on it . . . I will not quote the rest of it because at the time I was the Acting Deputy President in the chair and I had to rule former Senator Baume out of order for the language he used. But he was only quoting the former Prime Minister.On 24 and 25 June 1992, and on 7 September 1993, Michael Baume again presented a long account of what he had been following for some time on the Parkville piggery. It certainly makes interesting reading. But on 7 June 1994 he first raised questions about one of the matters that really concerns me and concerns the Australian people, which is what appeared to be the favourable treatment being given to Mr Constantinidis, Mr Keating and others by the Commonwealth Bank. I think that was the first time that he had raised these matters.If you read the Sydney Morning Herald today, there are a couple of people quoted. Ms Judith Radin lost her home because of money owing to the Commonwealth Bank. Another builder and property developer, Mr Greg Malouf, saw his $1 million home being sold because of a $3.5 million loan. It must gall a lot of people around Australia, and a lot of farmers who were paying high interest rates at the time and who had their farms sold out from under them because of debts a lot less than the purported $11 million that was going to be written off.There are a lot of questions to be asked about the actions of the bank. I made the comment for the first time in response at a doorstop on Monday morning, saying that if the Commonwealth Bank were to open their books I think this matter could be cleared up very quickly. I guess only time will tell. On 11 October 1994 former Senator Baume again raised the matter of a figure of $4.5 million being written off by the Commonwealth Bank. That $4.5 million figure is one that has been quoted in the electronic media this week.On 30 June 1995, after a couple of other efforts, former Senator Baume, in one of his expose speeches, first drew attention to the fact that there were Indonesian interests starting to become involved in this piggery operation. On 29 August 1995 he again raised a matter in this place about the Commonwealth Bank, the large amounts of public money that seemed to have been lost and the fact that the Indonesians were seen to be getting favoured treatment. In May 1996 former Senator Baume made the point:The reality is that there is a smell over the Keating piggery and Keating's involvement in it.He wanted the then Prime Minister to come clean.A notice of motion in June 1996 gave the opportunity for Michael Baume to comment about some of the language that was beingused against him by Senator Evans, who accused him of a:fishing, trawling, insubstantial, muck-raking expedition . . . in the usual slimy muck barrels that he inhabits.They were the sorts of things that were addressed to Michael Baume. In fact, I was once again in the chair and I had to call Senator Cook to order when he accused former Senator Baume of being a crook.I think what this week's events have done is to show that former Senator Baume was maligned by the then government in this place. The abuse he received from some government senators was beyond the pale, and what he exposed to the people of Australia has now come to pass to be quite correct. (Time expired)19:35:003193Senate adjourned at 7.35 p.m.Documents31933193The following government document was tabled:Australia-India Council—Report for 1997-98.Answers to Questions on Notice3194The following answers to questions were circulated:3194(Question No. 9)93194O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 11 November 1998:(1) How many industry advisory bodies are there in the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio.(2) (a) What is the membership of each body; (b) how are members selected; and (c) how often does each body meet.(3) Can a schedule of meetings be provided for each body since March 1996.(4) Has the Minister attended all meetings of each body; if not, which meetings has the Minister attended.(5) Does the Government provide funding to these industry advisory bodies; if so, how much funding has been provided to each body since March 1996 and how does each body use the funding.3194Alston, 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) 45 industry advisory bodies.(2) Please see attachment A(3) Please see attachment B(4) Minister is not required to attend meetings as a matter of course and does so as appropriate.(5) Please see attachment CAttachment A(2)—BODY(a) MEMBERSHIP(b) MEMBERSHIP SELECTION(c) BODY MEETING TIMESConsultative Rural Finance Forum (CRFF) (is a consultative group, established as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, to promote better communication and regular consultation between the farm sector, financiers and government on rural financial issues. The Forum does not have an advisory roleSenator the Hon Judith Troeth (Chair), Ian Donges, Barry Buffier, Bruce Brown, Brian Plain, Brent Clark, Alister Bennett, Mark Genovese, Bruce Bashford, David Heinjus, Max Ormsby, John de Salis, Peter Cooke, Ross Donald, Stuart Black, Bill Sheehan, Barbara Scott, Ian MacFarlane, Venessa Tripp, Permanent Observers: Stephen Carroll, Todd RitchieMembers are selected as representatives of rural finance stakeholders such as the major financial institutions, pastoral houses, credit union associations, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF), rural counsellors, accountants, government, farm consultants and business people.The Forum meets three times per year.Domestic Violence Advisory Committee (DVAC)Ms Venessa Tripp (Chair), FAS, Rural Division, AFFA, Mr Stanley Jeyaraj, Kids Help Line, Major Estelle Strong, Salvation Army, Ms Jeanie Brook, Multi Purpose Health Service, Cooktown Hospital, Ms Sharon Ledger, Domestic Violence Regional Service (South West), Ms Jean Tom, Country Women's Association, Ludo McFerran, WESNET Rural RepresentativeMembers of the Domestic Violence Advisory Committee are selected by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.The Domestic Violence Advisory Committee is expected to meet two to three times a year. Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC)Mr Neil Inall (Chairman); Mr Ross Donald; Mr Brian Plain; Ms Fran Rowe; Ms Margaret Thomson; Mr John Watson; Mr Bernard Wonder and Dr Roger Stone.The members are selected by the Minister after consultation with the States and Territories NFF. One member is a AFFA officer appointed to represent the Commonwealth. Other members are appointed to contribute expertise in economics, financial administration, banking, sustainable agriculture, regional adjustment, regional development, farm management or training.RASAC generally holds four Council meetings in any financial year as well as teleconferences as required.Rural Women's Advisory Group (RWAG)Secretary, Department of Primary Industries and Energy (Chair), President, Country Women's Association of Australia, President, Australian Women in Agriculture, President, Foundation for Australian Agricultural Women, Chairperson, Women's Industry Network (Fisheries Industry), Executive Director, National Farmers' Federation, Chair of Chairs, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Experts in social and community issues, research, regional development and sustainable land management.Members are selected by virtue of their positions or by their expertise.This group meets bi-yearly.Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council (QEAC)Mal Nairn Chairman, Ed Wright, Deputy Chairman, Peter Allen Member, Andrew Beattie Member, Jim Cullen Member, Paul Hickey Member, Andrew Inglis Member, Brian Jeffriess Member, Hart Krtschil Member, Ken Pritchett Member, Anne Story Member, Jack Ware Member, Carolyn Tanner Member, Ken Matthews MemberThe Council was appointed by Cabinet. Applications were sought and members appointed based on their skills, rather than on industry representation.The Secretary of AFFA and the Executive Director of AQIS hold memberships based on their position in the Department.QEAC meets bi-monthlySpecial Merino Export CommitteeWhile there are no formal appointments to the Committee it consists of representatives of the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders, the Australian Council of Livestock Agents, the Australian Livestock Exporters' Association and AFFA.Therefore, due to the lack of formal requirements, it is difficult to provide an official number of members.The Committee usually meets yearly to review the previous merino ram selling season and the administrative requirements for the coming season.Red Meat Advisory CouncilEach Peak Council of the red meat industry, represented by the President of each body.Each Peak Council of the red meat industry, represented by the President of each body.At least quarterly. National Pork Industry Development Group (NPIDG)Mr Trevor Herd (Chairman) has experience in the marketing and retail sectors. He is also currently Chairman of the Australian Pork Corporation, Mr Peter Brechin (Member)—pork producer, President of the Pork Council of Australia, Dr Mike Ginnivan (Member)—previously Chief Executive Officer, Bunge Meat Industries, Mr Kym Hewett (Member)—General Manager, Major Opportunities Group, Austrade, Mr Ian Nielsen (Member)—primary producer and exporter, Mr Greg Read (Government Member)—Assistant Secretary, Meat and Livestock Branch, AFFA, Mr Robert Sutton (Member)—Chairman (Australia), Jardine Matheson Group; Managing Director, Jardine Matheson (Australia) Ltd, Mr Tony West (Member)—pork producer; Chairman, NSW Farmers Pork Producers Committee, Dr Rob Wilson (Member)—Chairman, Pig Research and Development Corporation.The NPIDG is comprised of nine members selected for their experience and skills in production; processing; marketing; research and development; and exporting. The process of selecting members involves full consultation between the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and industry. The Department then seeks the formal approval of the Minister to the proposed appointments.At this stage the NPIDG has been meeting monthly in order to progress key elements of the activities of the Program, such as finalising the Business Plan and considering applications for funding. It is envisaged the frequency of meetings will reduce now the Business Plan has been released, and applications are likely to be placed in funding rounds.National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW)The Committee consists of an independent Chairman appointed by the Minister; and 15 members comprising a person nominated by each of the following: Department of Primary Industries and Energy; Bureau of Resource Sciences; Environment Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council; National Farmers' Federation; Australian Veterinary Association; RSPCA Australia; Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies (ANZFAS); and a representative from each State/Territory Government (drawn from State Animal Welfare Advisory Councils/Committees where they presently exist).Members are nominated by their organisation and approval is required by the Minister.Bi-annually Horticulture 2000 GroupSenator the Hon Judith Troeth Chairman, Mr Bob Seldon Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC)—Chairman, Mr James McGeoch Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC)—Chairman, Mr Larry Cavallaro Temperate producer representative, Mr Jon Durham Temperate producer representative, Mr Silvio Favero Vegetable producer representative, Mr Jeremy Gayland Marketer representative, Mr Bob Granger Tropical producer representative, Mr Terry Hill, ARMCANZ representative, Mr Lyndel Jack Austrade, Mr Bruce Lloyd Government Appointee, Mr Mike Macnamara Commonwealth representativeMr Tony Walsh Exporter representative, Mr Michael O'Brien Processor representative, Mr John Rich Vegetable producer representativeThe Minister for Primary Industries and Energy appoints the Chair of the Horticulture 2000 Group. The positions of AHC and HRDC Chairs are ex-officio positions. Other members are appointed predominantly on the nomination of the bodies or sectors that they represent.4 times a yearCitrus Market Development GroupSenator the Hon Judith Troeth Chairperson, Mr Neil Eagle President Australian Citrus Growers Inc, Mr Steven Benham Member Citrus Sectional Committee Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Mr Mark Napper Acting MD Australian Horticultural Corporation, Mr Michael Crook President Australian Citrus Industry Council, Mr Mark Hancock MD Mildura Co-op Fruit Company representing citrus processors and converters, Mr Andrew Weigall Yandilla Park Ltd representing citrus exporters, Mr David Cain CEO Citrus Board of SA, Mr Iain Worrall GM Griffith Producers Co-op Ltd, representing citrus packers, Mr John Braniff CEO Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board, Mr Peter Davidson Chairperson Riverina Citrus Marketing, Mr Peter Walker HRDC Board MemberThe Chair of the Citrus Market Development Group is appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Other members are appointed predominantly on the nomination of the bodies or sectors which they represent.When the Group was established in 1994, nominations for membership were sought from: the Australian Citrus Industry Council (five nominees to collectively represent all sectors of the industry); the four State statutory marketing authorities/committees (one nominee each from Riverina Citrus Marketing, the Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board, the Citrus Board of South Australia and Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers); and the two Commonwealth statutory authorities with responsibilities for horticultural programs (one nominee each from the AHC and the HRDC).Usually three or four times a year. Agricultural Chemicals Consultative CommitteeMr Peter Raphael NRA-Chair, Mr Lee Jones Plastics and Chemical Industries Association, Mr Geoff Harris Australian Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Association, Mr Geoff MacAlpine Avcare, Mr Peter Munro Aerosol Association of Australia, Mr Lindsay Showyin Aerosol Association of Australia, Mr Andrew Simons Swimming Pool and Spa Association of Australia, Ms Jane Carder NRA SecretaryThe members for this Committee are selected by the organisations represented on the Committees.Every nine (9) to twelve (12) monthsIndustry Liaison CommitteeMr Greg Hooper NRA Chair, Mr John Alexander Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Australia, Mr Geoff Harris Australian Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Mr Geoff MacAlpine Avcare, Mr Bruce McAllen Plastics and Chemical Industries Association, Mr Kerry Sanford Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mr Lindsay Showyin Aerosol Association of Australia, Mr Andrew Simons Swimming Pool and Spa Association of Australia, Mr David Bateman NRA SecretaryThe members for this Committee are selected by the organisations represented on the Committees.Every six monthsNRA Meat Consultative CommitteeMr Greg Hooper NRA Chair, Dr Tony Britt Agriculture Victoria, Mr Bob Biddle Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Mr Norm Blackman Meat Research Corporation, Mr Kevin Dunn Department of Primary Industries Queensland, Mr Robert Johnson Cattle Council of Australia, Mr Peter Klein Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Dr Terry Nicholls National Residue Survey, Mr Kevin O'Brien ACT Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr David Palmer Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Mr Kerry Sandford Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mrs Helen Scott-Orr NSW Agriculture, Mr Justin Toohey National Farmers Federation, Mr Bob Witham Tick Control Advisory Committee, Mr Des Whittle Australian Meat Council, Dr Ron Eichner NRA SecretaryThe members for this Committee are selected by the organisations represented on the Committees.Annually Veterinary Chemicals Consultative CommitteeMr Peter Raphael NRA Chair, Dr John Alexander Pet Industry Joint Advisory Committee, Dr Alan Cole Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mr Kerry Sandford Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mr Geoff MacAlpine Avcare, Dr Valerie Villiere Avcare, Mr Michael Craft Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Dr Tom Grimes Australian Veterinary Poultry Association, Dr Brian Priestly Department of Health and Family Services, Mr Michael O'Connor Department of Health and Family Services, Mr Peter Scott Australian Veterinary Association, Dr David Snow Australian Veterinarians in Industry, Dr Craig Suann National Office of Australian Racing, Ms Teresa Storey SecretaryThe members for this Committee are selected by the organisations represented on the Committees.Every 6 monthsNRA/Industry Manufacturers' Licensing Liaison CommitteeMr Greg Hooper NRA Chair, Dr John Owusu NRA Secretary, Mr Graham Savage NRA, Mr Geoff MacAlpine Avcare, Mr Ian Wheatley Avcare, Mr Bill Blackhall Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mr Mike Craft Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Mr Chris Lawlor Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors AssociationThe members for this Committee are selected by the organisations represented on the Committees.At least twice a year South East Trawl Management Advisory Committee (SETMAC)The Hon Bennett Chairperson, Mr Geoff Richardson AFMA member, Dr Derek Staples Research member. Mr Bert Tober Industry member, Mr Lachlan Marshall Industry member, Mr Anthony Jubb Industry member, Mr Lindsay Cheers Industry member, Ms Margi Prideaux Environment/ Conservation member, Mr Craig Bohm State/Government member, Ms Gail Hewitt Executive officer.The AFMA Board makes all appointments to Management Advisory Committees (MAC's) and may appoint Members for terms of up to three years. If a Member resigns, the Board may appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term of appointment. To ensure continuity, it would be unusual for a Member to be appointed for less than two years.The arrangements for filling membership positions may vary slightly across MACs/CCs to reflect the individual nature of each Committee and the status of management arrangements in the corresponding fishery. However, all MAC/CC members are selected in processes which are consistent with the provisions of AFMA's Fisheries Management Paper No. 1—Management Advisory Committees, a copy of which can be provided if required.Generally CC member selections and appointments are made in the same manner as noted above for MAC members. Committees,Needs basis (see schedule of meeting).South East Non-Trawl Fishery Management Advisory Committee(SENTMAC)Mr Gerry Geen Chairperson, Mr Geoff Richardson AFMA member, Mr David Smith Research member, Mr William Mure Industry member, Mr Anthony Mooney Industry member, Mr Horst Fischer Industry member, Mr Michael Tucker Industry member, Mr Greg Keatley Industry member, Mr Craig Bohm Environment/ Conservation member, Ms Cindy O'Brien Executive OfficerAs aboveAs aboveSub-antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SOUTHMAC)Mr Bill Nagle Chair person, Ms Trysh Stone AFMA member, Dr Keith Sainsbury Research member, Mr Joe Pirello Industry member, Mr Martin Excel Industry member, Mr Les Scott Industry member, Mr Ian Hay AAD member, Mr Sean Riley State Government member, Ms Margaret Moore Environment/ Conservation member.As aboveAs above Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Eastern Tuna MAC)Mr David Bateman Chairperson, Ms Dorothea Huber AFMA member, Dr John Gunn Research member, Mr Geoff Binns Industry member, Mr Brian Jeffriess Industry member, Mr Grant Taylor Industry member, Mr Bob Lamason Industry member, Mr Paul Anderson Recreational member, Mr Gary Henry State Government member, Mr Bill Edwards Permanent Charter Boat Observer, Mr Glenn Sant Environment/Conservation member, Mr Ian Freeman Executive OfficerAs aboveAs aboveSouthern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Southern Tuna MAC)Mr Rob Lewis Chairperson, Ms Mary Lack AFMA member, Dr Tom Polacheck Research member, Mr Mario Valcic Industry member, Mr Greg Honeychurch Industry member, Mr Joe Puglisi Industry member, Mr Bob Lamason Industry member, Mr Glenn Sant Environment/Conservation member, Mr Gary Morgan State Government member, Mr Bob McPherson Permanent Recreational Fishing Observer, Mr Brian Jeffriess Executive OfficerAs aboveAs aboveWestern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Western Tuna MAC)Mr Brett McCallum Chairperson, Ms Mary Lack AFMA member, Dr John Gunn Research member, Ms Erica Starling Industry member, Mr Kim Newbold Industry member, Mr Mario Valcic Industry member, Mr Neil Patrick Recreational member, Mr Tim Bray State Government member, Mr Rob Fish Executive OfficerAs aboveAs aboveNorthern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee (NORMAC)Mr Brian Jeffriess Chairperson, Mr Frank Meere AFMA member, Dr Burke Hill Research member, Mr Murray France Industry member, Mr Efrem Gamba Industry member, Ms Louise Deacon-Casey Industry member, Mr Greg Albert Industry member, Mr David Hall State Government member, Mr Eddie Hergerl Environment Conservation member, Ms Annie Jarrett Executive OfficerAs aboveAs above Western Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (WestMAC)Mr Martin Holtz Chairperson, Mr Bruce Wallner AFMA member, Mr John Garvey Research member, Mr Semi Skoljarev Industry member, Mr Richard Elvin Industry member, Mr George Simpson Industry member, Mr Greg Ferguson Industry member, Ms Margi Prideaux Environment/ Conservation member, Ms Fiona Crowe State Government member, Ms Wendy O'Brien Executive OfficerSouthern Shark Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SharkMAC)Mr Barry Kaufmann Chairperson, Mr Dave Johnson AFMA member, Dr Andrew Punt Research member, Mr Brian Bailey Industry member, Mr Trevor Gilmore Industry member, Mr Wynne Hobson Industry member, Mr Horst Fischer Industry member, Mr Peter Riseley Industry member, Mr Glenn Sant Environment/ Conservation member, Mr Dennis Witt State Government member, Mr Ian Freeman Executive Officer.Great Australian Bight Management Advisory Committee (GABMAC)Ms Gail Hewitt Chairperson, Mr Bruce Wallner AFMA member, Mr Richard Tilzey Research member, Mr Jim Raptis Industry member, Ms Marcia Valente Industry member, Mr Richard Elvin Industry member, Mr Semi Skoljarev Industry member, Mr Will Zacharin State Government member, Mr Gordon Anderson Environment/ Conservation member, Ms Wendy O'Brien Executive OfficerBass Strait Scallop Consultative Committee (BSSCC)Mr Kim Parkinson Chairperson/AFMA member, Mr Stuart Richey AFMA Board member, Dr Noel Coleman Research member, Mr John Hammond Industry member, Mr Arno Blank Industry member, Mr Bill Cull Industry member, Mr Peter Stegmann Industry member, Mr Bruce Male Environment/ Conservation member, Mr Steve McCormack State Government member, Mr Steve Mantzaris Processing member (Vic), Ms Jane Malcolm Executive Officer SquidMACMr Richard McLoughlin Chairperson, Mr Kim Parkinson AFMA member, Dr Ian Knuckey Research member, Mr David Molloy State Government member, Mr Lisle Elleway Industry member, Mr John Anastos Industry member, Mr Andrew Watts Industry member, Mr Geoff Richey Industry member, Dr Mark Norman Environment/Conservation member, Ms Jane Malcolm Executive OfficerTorres Strait Fisheries Management CommitteeMr Kim Parkinson Chairperson, Mr Tony Kingston AFMA member, Dr Ian Poiner Scientific member, Mr Pat Appleton QFMA member, Mr Dan Currey QDPI member, Mr Ray Moore Industry member (QCFO), Mr Roger Green Industry member (QCFO), Mr Ted Loveday Industry member (QCFO), Mr Henry Garnier Island Co-ordinating Council (ICC) member, Mr Getano Lui (Jnr) ICC member, Mr Thomas Fujii ICC member, Ms Nancy Mosby Executive OfficerNorfolk Island Fisheries Consultative Committee (NIFCC)Mr Kim Parkinson Chairperson, Mr John Lorking NI Fishing Club, Mr Peter Woodward, NI Fishing Club, The Hon Ric Robinson NI Minister for Community Resource Management, Mr Toon Buffet NI Chief Administrative Officer, Mr Ralph Condon Deputy Administrator, Mr Steve Jackson SecretaryFisheries Research Advisory Bodies (FRABs) one for each State, Northern Territory and the Commonwealth (8) in totalEach FRAB comprises between five and ten members.They are expertise based and normally comprise fisheries managers, researchers, commercial fishers, recreational fishers and others.The FRABs meet quarterly. Australian Landcare Council (formerly the National Landcare Advisory Committee)Mr Bruce Lloyd, Chairman; Mr Des Boyland, representing ANZECC; Mr Peter Clarke, community member; Dr Wendy Craik, representing the NFF; Mr Rex Edmondson, community member; Mr Michael Krockenberger, representing the ACF; Ms Meredith Laing, community member; Mr David Papps, representing ARMCANZ; Mr Graham Sansom, representing ALGA; Mr Tim Scholz, community member; Mr John Smink, community member; Ms Alison Teese, community member; Mr Clive Thomas, community member representing the MDB community; Mr Mark Thomas, representing Greening Australia; Mr Tracker Tilmouth, representing the indigenous community.The Chairman and all members are appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Following the recent election, appointments will in future be made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.The ALC meets four times per year.National Residue Survey/Cattle Council/Australian Lot Feeders Association Consultative CommitteeThere are no formal appointments to the committee. It consists of senior representatives of the National Residue Survey, the Cattle Council of Australia and (since July 1998) the Australian Lot Feeders AssociationAs there are no formal requirements for membership. Numbers at meetings are usually on a `needs' basis.The committee usually meets at least twice a year to discuss the cattle industry's residue monitoring program, expenditure levels and levy changes.National residue Survey/Grains Council Consultative CommitteeThere are no formal appointments to the committee. It consists of senior representatives of the National Residue Survey and the Grains Council of AustraliaAs there are no formal requirements for membership. Numbers at meetings are usually on a `needs' basis.The committee usually meets at least twice a year to discuss the grain industry's residue monitoring program, expenditure levels and levy changes.Wool Industry Future Directions TaskforceChair, the Hon Ian McLachlan AO. Members, Perry Gunner, Julia King, Mark Johnson, Daniel Samson and Harold CloughAppointed by the MinisterDetermined by the Taskforce as required to meet 30 June deadline for reporting.Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB)Chair, Mr Don McGauchie. Members, Phillip Scanlan, Elizabeth Bryan, Brian van Rooyen, Reg ClairsAppointed by the MinisterDetermined by IAB as required to meet 30 June deadline for reporting. Expect to meet at least monthly.AQIS Grains Industry Consulative Working GroupAustralian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), Grains Council of Australia, AWB Limited, Australian Grain Marketing Federation, Seed Industry Association, National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association, Australian Oilseeds Federation, Australian Grain Exporters Association, Bulk Handling Authorities, Ricegrowers Co-operative, Australian Fodder Industry Association, Quarantine and Export Advisory CouncilMembers nominated by respective industry body.Meets 3 to 4 times per annum. Horticulture Industry Consultative Committee (HICC)Mr Jon Durham, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association, Mr David Hunt-Sharman, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Horticultural Exporters Association, Mr John Baker, Chief Executive, Produce Marketing Australia Pty LtdMr Russell Klopper, SecretaryFlower Export Council of Australia, Mr Neil Offner, Export Development Manager, Australian Horticultural Corporation, Mr Len Collins, Chairman, Australian Banana Growers Council, QEAC Representative, Mr Hart Krtschil, Mr John Campbell, Chairman Export Committee, Australian Fresh Stone Fruit Growers Association, Mr Bob Curren, Executive Director, Australian Citrus Growers Incorporated, Mr Brian Newman, Secretary, AUSVEG, Mr David Hood, Queensland Fruit & Vegetable Growers, Mr Jolyon Burnett, Chief Executive Officer, Nursery Industry Association of Australia, Mr Les Horsfield, Thorpdale Trading Mr Rod Dalton, President, Australian Avocado Growers' Federation Inc, QEAC Representative, Ms Anne Story Growers Members nominated by respective industry body.Meets twice per annum.Post-Entry Plant Industry Consultative Committee (PEPICC)AQIS, Australian Citrus Improvement Association, Australian Pome Fruit Improvement Program Limited, Australian Potato Industry Council, Australian Rubus Grower's Association, Australian Vine Improvement Association, Environment Australia, Fleming's Nursery & Associates, Nursery Industry Association of Australia, Quarantine and Export Advisory Council, Toolangi Certified Strawberry Runner Grower's Co-operative LimitedRepresentation from industry is invited.Meetings are usually held twice per annum. Biologicals Consultative CommitteeAQIS, Peter Holdsworth (Avcare), Tony Beaver (Food and Beverage Importers Association), Anne Vukmanovich (Medical Industry Association of Australia), Fred Bover (Veterinary Manufacturers and Distributors Association), Samantha O'Connor (Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association), Alan Lawrenson (Scientific Suppliers Association of Australia), Stephen Morris (Customs Brokers Council of Australia), Geoffrey Burge (Sigma Aldrich), Richard Hamlyn-Harris (Australian Aquaculture Forum), Vanessa Williams (Association of Regulatory and Clinical Scientists)Initially members were selected by the AQIS Biologicals Unit. Subsequently some industry bodies have also asked to be represented and this has been agreed.Meets annually.Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory CouncilDr M Williams Chairperson, AQIS, Association of Australian Ports and Maritime Authorities (AAPMA), Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), CSIRO Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests(CRIMP), Australian Shipowners' Association (ASA), BHP Transport (BHP), Australian Chamber of Shipping (ACOS), Australian Aquaculture Council (AAC), Commonwealth Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (DWRSB), Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Environment Australia, Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (TDPIF), Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC), WA Department of Transport (WADOT), NSW Office of Marine Safety (OMS), Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), Qld Department of the Environment (QDE), SA Department of Environment & Natural Resources(SAENR), Victorian Environment Protection Authority (VEPA), NT Department of Transport and Works (NTT&W), Peak Conservation Organisation (PCO) (SCFA), Chairperson appointed by Minister. Members nominated by respective industry body.Meets twice per year. Imported Foods Advisory CommitteeAQIS—Chair, Australian New Zealand Food Authority, Australian Food Council, Food and Beverage Importers Association, Victorian Fish and Food Marketing Association, Importers Association of Western Australia, NSW Fish Importers Association, Australian Government Analytical LaboratoriesMembers nominated by respective industry body.Annually.Dairy Export Industry Consultative CommitteeAQIS—Chair, State Dairy Authorities, Australian Dairy Products Federation, Dairy Export Registered Establishments, Australian Dairy Corporation, Livestock and Pastoral Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Processed Food Policy Section, Australian Quarantine Inspection Service Food Programs SectionMembers nominated by respective industry body.Annually with various relevant Subcommittees meeting as required to deal with current issues.Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC)Australian Abalone Producers Association (Chair), Oyster Farmers Association of NSW, Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC), Industry representatives from:. Kailis & France. DOSAQUA. Ocean Foods. Food Factotum. A. Raptis & Sons. M&M Fisheries. AQISMembership is via nomination/application. Selection of committee members is made jointly by ASIC and AQIS.Committee meets at least 2 times per annumExport Meat Industry Advisory CommitteeMembership: Australian Meat Council—4 representatives; Mr B James, Mr J Ware, Mr R Van Nesch, Mr R Gawthorne, National Meat Association—4 representatives; Mr B Treloar, Mr P Greenham, Mr G Tancred, Mr A Wharton., 1 representative each from:, Australian Chamber of Shipping, Mr U Danielsen, Meat and Livestock Australia, Mr C Pitt, Refrigerated Warehouse and Transport Association of Australia, Mr R Glass, Food Science Australia, Mr B Shay, Australian Food Council Processed Meat Industry Forum, Mr J McCausland, Chairman, Dr R Biddle (AQIS), Secretary, Mr E Klim (AQIS)Members are nominated to the committee by their respective parent organisationsThe committee meets four times a year (approximately quarterly)Attachment B(3)—SCHEDULE OF MEETINGBODYMEETINGS SINCE MARCH 1996Consultative Rural Finance Forum (CRFF)20 November 1997; 19 February 1998; 18 June 1998Domestic Violence Advisory Committee (DVAC)23 June 1998Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC)CanberraApr 96Teleconference May 96; Teleconference Jun 96; Canberra Jul 96; Canberra Oct 96; TeleconferenceNov 96; Canberra Dec 96; Melbourne Mar 97; Teleconference May 97; Teleconference May 97; Teleconference May 97; Canberra Jun 97; Teleconference Aug 97; Canberra Sep 97; Canberra Oct 97; Teleconference Nov 97; Sydney Dec 97; Teleconference Feb 98; Griffith, NSW Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98; Canberra May 98; Canberra Jun 98; Teleconference Jun 98; Sydney Jul 98; Sydney Jul 98; Teleconference Jul 98Rural Women's Advisory Group (RWAG)18 September 1996; 27 May 1997; 12 November 1997; 10 June 1998Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council (QEAC)QEAC 1 10 December 1997—Inaugural Meeting; QEAC 2 18 February 1998; QEAC 3 16 April 1998; QEAC 4 17 June 1998; QEAC 5 19 August 1998 (planned); QEAC 6 14 October 1998 (planned); QEAC 7 9 December 1998 (planned)Special Merino Export CommitteeThere was no official meeting in 1997 or 1998. 1996: meeting was held Friday 29 march 1996 at the Australian merino Centre, Sydney Showground.Red Meat Advisory CouncilTwo meetings have been held (15 and 29 July) since the body was established on 1 July 1998.National Pork Industry Development Group (NPIDG)1 Sydney 09-02-98; 2 Melbourne 20-03-98; 3 Canberra 29-04-98; 4 Sydney 22-05-98; 5 Sydney 25-06-98; 6 Adelaide 13-07-98National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW)2-3 April 1996; 2-13 November 1996; 22-23 April 1997; 28-29 October 1997; 28-29 April 1998.Horticulture 2000 Group10 June 1996; 2 September 1996; 13 December 1996; 14 March 1997; 21 July 1997; 1 December 1997; 27 February 1998; 29 May 1998; 21 August 1998; 13 November 1998; 12 February 1999Citrus Market Development Group12 April 1996; 12 July 1996; 16 December 1996; 7 March 1997; 20 June 1997; 3 November 1997; 19 December 1997; 24 February 1998; 8 April 1998; 22 July 1998Agricultural Chemicals Consultative Committee23 June 1996; 24 June 1997Industry Liaison CommitteeJuly 1996; November 1996; April 1997; October 1997; April 1998; September 1998NRA Meat Consultative Committee7 February 1997; 16 February 1998Veterinary Chemicals Consultative Committee13 June 1996; 14 November 1996; 1 May 1997; 25 September 1997; 10 March 1998NRA/Industry Manufacturer's' Licensing Liaison Committee17 May 1996; 20 January 1997; 10 March 1997; 18 August 1997; 21 March 1998; 21 May 1998; 5 August 1998South East Trawl Management Advisory Committee (SETMAC)27 March 1996; 10 July 1996; 6 August 1996; 20/21 September 1996; 5 December 1996; 19/20 March 1997; 5 May 1997; 8/9 July 1997; 17/18 September 1997; 31 March—1 April 1998; 28/29 July 1998; 29/30 September 1998; 17-18 November 1998South East Non-Trawl Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SENTMAC)15/16 April 1996; 10/11 July 1996; 17/18 October 1996; 17/18 April 1997; 11/12 June 1997; 31 June 1997; 9/10 October 1997; 19 November 1997; 9/10 February 1998; 16/17 April 1998; 6/7 August 1998 Sub-antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SOUTHMAC)30 November 1998; 12 February 1999Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Eastern Tuna MAC)15/16 April 1996; 1 / 2 November 1996; 15/16 May 1997; 8/9 November 1997; 1 / 2 February 1998; 31 March 1998; 21/22 April 1998; 2-3 September 1998; 11/12 November 1998; 15-16 December 1998; 15/16 December 1998Southern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Southern Tuna MAC)17 May 1996; 12 September 1996; 8/9 May 1997; 21/22 August 1997; 22 October 1997; 9 March 1998; 27 August 1998 Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Western Tuna MAC)5/6 March 1996; 30 May 1996; 13/14 November 1996; 19 November 1996; 5 October 1998; 5 November 1998Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee (NORMAC)19 February 1996; 4 July 1996; 4 December 1996; 14 February 1997; 21 March 1997; 21 March 1997; 21 June 1997; 17 July 1998; 13 November 1997; 11 March 1998; 17 July 1998 ; 18 November 1998; 12 February 1999Western Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (WestMAC)26 April 1998; 26 May 1998Southern Shark Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SharkMAC)8-10 May 1996; 20/21 June 1996; 28 July 1996; 16/17 October 1996; 10/11 April 199727 June 1997; 23-24 July 1998; 25/26 September 1997; 29/30 January 1998; 25-27 March 1998; 23/24 July 1998; 29/30 October 1998; 16 February 1999Great Australian Bight Management Advisory Committee (GABMAC)22 March 1996; 18 February 1997; 16 January 1998; 21 August 1998; 22 September 1998Bass Strait Scallop Consultative Committee (BSSCC)28/29 March 19963 October 1996; 19/20 March 1997; 30 June 1997; 19/20 March 1998SquidMAC10 June 1998 Inaugural meeting)Torres Strait Fisheries Management Committee25 October 1996; 18 September 1997; 9 September 1998Norfolk Island Fisheries Consultative Committee (NIFCC)8 May 199618 July 1997; 24 September 1998Fisheries Research Advisory Bodies (FRABs) one for each State, Northern Territory and the Commonwealth (8) in totalQuarterly meetingsAustralian Landcare Council5/6 March 1996; 5/6 June 1996; 27-29 August 1996; 13/14 November 1996; 26/27 August 1997; 17-19 November 1997; 23/24 February 1998; 18-20 May 1998; 27-30 July 1998; 27-29 October 1998National Residue Survey/Cattle Council/Australian Lot Feeders Association Consultative Committee24 March 1997; 9-10 September 1997; 16-17 June 1998National Residue Survey/Grains Council Consultative Committee13 March 1997; 10 February 1998Wool Industry Future Directions Taskforce15 January 1999; 29 January 1999; 10 February 1999Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB)5 February 1999; Only one formal meeting has been held to date AQIS Grains Industry Consulative Working Group18/6/1996; 6/8/1996; 6/11/1996; 21/5/1997; 21/11/1997; 4/12/1997; 22/4/1998; 12/5/1998; 13/8/1998; 14/10/1998; 9/12/1998; Some of these were teleconferencesHorticulture Industry Consultative Committee (HICC)14 June 1996; 30 May 1997; 12 November 1997; 25 November 1997 (teleconference); 28 May 1998Post-Entry Plant Industry Consultative Committee (PEPICC)4 September 19979 December 19976 August 1998Biologicals Consultative Committee13 October 1997; 20 August 1998Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council29 July 199620 November 1996; 6 May 1997; 18 November 1997; 5 May 1998; 19 October 1998Imported Foods Advisory Committee8 July 1996; 22 November 1996; 26 September 1997Dairy Export Industry Consultative Committee (DEICC)21 March 1996; 2December 1996; 5 March 1998Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC)14 March 1996; 19 September 1996; 17 April 1997; 19 November 1997; 26 March 1998; 11 December 1998Export Meat Industry Advisory CommitteeEMIAC 16 6 March 1996; EMIAC 17 22 May 1996; EMIAC 18 21 August 1996; EMIAC 19 13 November 1996; EMIAC 20 5 March 1997; EMIAC 21 5 June 1997; EMIAC 22 20 August 1997; EMIAC 23 12 November 1997; EMIAC 24 11 March 1998; EMIAC 25 20 May 1998; EMIAC 26 19 August 1998; EMIAC 27 11 November 1998Attachment C(5)—BODYAMOUNT OF FUNDINGUSE OF FUNDINGConsultative Rural Finance Forum (CRFF)Expenditure totalled $11,680 in 1997-98Travel and accommodation expenses for rural sector representatives not representing large organisations, such as the NFF, are funded by AFFA.Domestic Violence Advisory Committee (DVAC)1997/98 $43,000; 1998/99 $86,000.The Government funds the Domestic Violence Advisory Committee through running costs annual appropriations. Running costs include remuneration payments to members (as approved by Remuneration Tribunal guidelines), travelling allowances, and costs associated with holding Advisory Committee meetings.Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC)1996/97 $311,000; 1997/98 $311,000.RASAC running costs are funded through AFFA annual appropriations. Running costs include remuneration payments to members (as approved by the Remuneration Tribunal), travelling allowances, costs associated with holding Council meetings and office expenditure.Rural Women's Advisory Group (RWAG)$33,376.00Meals, accommodation and travelling.Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council (QEAC)$257 688.00The Government provides funding for QEAC, through Nairn funding. QEAC relies on the funding for member's fees, industry consultation, meetings, familiarisation and secretariat services.Special Merino Export CommitteeNo funding is allocated to the Committee, only costs of attending meetings are met by the membership.Red Meat Advisory CouncilNoNoNational Pork Industry Development Group (NPIDG)1997-98: $51,674.59; 1/7/98 to 3/8/98: $8,613.23The Government has provided $10 million for the Program, which commenced in November 1997 and terminates on 30 June 2000. It was agreed by relevant Ministers that the running costs for the operation of the NPIDG and associated secretariat should be capped at 5% (or $500,000) of the cost of the Program. It was also agreed that the roll-over of unspent funds be permitted up to 30 June 2000. Expenditure to date has included an amount of $29,328 spent on the preparation by a consultant of the NPIDG Business Plan. The remainder has been expended on meeting costs of the NPIDG, and secretariat support costs. It is anticipated that project funding under the program will shortly commence, following Ministerial approval of project expenditure totalling over $2 million. Several more project proposals are currently under consideration by the NPIDG.National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW)No funding is provided to the Committee. The Commonwealth only meets members travel and incidental expenses. Horticulture 2000 GroupOn the winding up of the Horticultural Policy Council (HPC) on 31 August 1995, approval was granted for $169,000 of unexpended HPC funds to be transferred to the Horticulture 2000 Group on its inception. $125,000 was approved to be carried forward into 1996/97. At the end of 1997/1998 $70,691 of unexpended funds remain.Funding provided to the Horticulture 2000 Group has been used for:. Refund of members' travel costs to the four meetings held each year;. Printing and distribution of meeting papers to members and summary reports of meetings, which are distributed to around 350 industry associations;. Printing and distribution of publications such as the Chemical Residue Management Plan produced by the Horticulture 2000 Group;. Part funding a joint study being conducted by the AHC and HRDC which is looking at the impact of the Asian financial crisis on Australian horticulture and how the AHC/HRDC and industry can minimise the impact of the Asian financial crisis; and. Meeting costs.Citrus Market Development GroupFunding for meeting costs of the Group has been approved. Funds spent on the operations of the Citrus Market Development Group for meeting costs have totalled $52,891 since March 1996.Under the Terms of Reference for the Citrus Market Development Group, the Group is responsible for recommending projects to be funded from the Commonwealth's Citrus Market Diversification Grant. Projects approved by the Group are submitted to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for funding approval.Agricultural Chemicals Consultative CommitteeThere is no government funding involved, as the NRA is a fully cost recovered organisation through fees and charges on the regulated industry.Industry Liaison CommitteeThere is no government funding involved, as the NRA is a fully cost recovered organisation through fees and charges on the regulated industry.NRA Meat Consultative CommitteeAs aboveVeterinary Chemicals Consultative CommitteeAs aboveNRA/Industry Manufacturer's' Licensing Liaison CommitteeAs aboveSouth East Trawl Management Advisory Committee (SETMAC)An amount less than $40,000.00 has been provided by the Government since March 1996 for SETMAC, SEFNTCC, Eastern Tuna MAC, Southern Tuna MAC, Western Tuna MAC, NORMAC, WestMAC, SharkMAC, GABMAC, SquidMAC, NIFCCTo fund travel allowance and fares for the Government member on some MACs.South East Trawl Management Advisory Committee (SETMAC)An amount less than $40,000.00 has been provided by the Government since March 1996 for SETMAC, SEFNTCC, Eastern Tuna MAC, Southern Tuna MAC, Western Tuna MAC, NORMAC, WestMAC, SharkMAC, GABMAC, SquidMAC, NIFCCTo fund travel allowance and fares for non industry member on some MACs.South East Non-Trawl Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SEFNTCC)As aboveAs aboveSub-antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SOUTHMAC)As aboveAs aboveEastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Eastern Tuna MAC)As aboveAs aboveSouthern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Southern Tuna MAC)As aboveAs above Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Advisory Committee (Western Tuna MAC)As aboveAs aboveNorthern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee (NORMAC)As aboveAs aboveWestern Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (WestMAC)As aboveAs aboveSouthern Shark Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SharkMAC)As aboveAs aboveGreat Australian Bight Management Advisory Committee (GABMAC)As aboveAs aboveBass Strait Scallop Consultative Committee (BSSCC)As aboveAs aboveSquidMACAs aboveAs aboveFisheries Research Advisory Bodies (FRABs) one for each State, Northern Territory and the Commonwealth (8) in totalThe Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) provides up to $15,000.00 per year. To meet the operating cost of FRABsAustralian Landcare Council1996/97 expenditure: $211.3111997/98 expenditure: $187,452; 1998/99 estimate: $245,000ALC operational costs are funded through the Natural Resources Management Fund. Operational costs include remuneration payments to members (as approved by the Remuneration Tribunal), travelling allowances associated with bringing a widely dispersed membership to meetings, and costs associated with holding Council meetings.National Residue Survey/Cattle Council/Australian Lot Feeders Association Consultative Committee24 March 1997—$621.00; 9-10 September 1997—$1940.70; 16-17 June 1998—$3328.01No funds are allocated to the committee. Costs of attending the meeting by industry representatives are met from industry funds held in the National Residue Survey Reserve Fund.National Residue Survey/Grains Council Consultative CommitteeNo funds are allocated to the committee. Costs of attending the meeting by the Grains Council representatives are met by industry.Wool Industry Future Directions TaskforceTaskforce funded by the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation.Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB)No funding has been provided to this date.The Government will be providing funding to this body, up to $393,100. Funds are used for members' fees, consultants' fees, travel and administrative costs.AQIS Grains Industry Consulative Working GroupThere is no government funding involved, as the Grain Export Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/AHorticulture Industry Consultative Committee (HICC)There is no government funding involved, as the Horticulture Export Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/APost-Entry Plant Industry Consultative Committee (PEPICC)There is no government funding involved, as the Post-Entry Plants Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/ABiologicals Consultative Committee.There is no government funding involved, as the Biologicals Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/A Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory CouncilThe costs are met from the Ballast Water Program's community service obligations (CSO) funds. Depending on the venue each meeting is estimated to cost between $6,000 to $8,000.Funding from the Program's CSOs provides for:. the Chair's sitting fees, accommodation and transport. non-government members' air fares, incidentals and accommodation. costs associated with production of agenda papers, freight, venue and hospitality.Imported Foods Advisory CommitteeThere is no government funding involved, as the Imported Foods Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/ADairy Export Industry Consultative CommitteeThere is no government funding involved, as the Dairy Export Inspection Program is a fully cost recovered through fees and charges on the regulated industry.N/AFishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC)There is no government funding involved, as the Fish Exports Program is fully cost recovered through fees and charges levied on the export fishing industry.N/AFishing Industry Charging and Review Committee (FICRC)There is no government funding involved, as the Fish Exports Program is fully cost recovered through fees and charges levied on the export fishing industry.N/AExport Meat Industry Advisory CommitteeThe Government provides no funding to the Export Meat Industry Advisory Committee3213(Question No. 234)2343213Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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.3213Alston, 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:Please see attached tableYearPurpose of ContractInvolvement of OGIANumber of Firm ProposalsNumber of Tender ProposalsFirm selectedContract PriceAmount expended by dept1997/98 Total amount for year $205,210Benchmark research to assist the development of a communications strategy for the Natural Heritage TrustNil33ARM: Quantum Harris30,40030,400Benchmark tracking research for Quarantine Awareness strategy from Sept—Oct 97OGIA recm'd companies and sat in on selection process.Four proposals received.Four received.AC Nielsen97,14594,270 Omnibus market research survey for Quarantine Week 98—April/May 98OGIA agreed ACNielsen should do job as an extension of research done in Sept 97.ACNielsen only proposal—OGIA approved selection of ACNielsen on preferred supplier basis.n/aA C Nielsen n/a15,000Focus group testing of traveller brochure, "What can I take into Australia?" undertaken in Nov/Dec 97OGIA consulted and rec'd four research firms, agreed on proposed approach and did not want to be formally involved in selection process.Of four firms sent a brief only two sent in proposals.Two receivedBlue Moon8,100SupplyChain Management Project Phase 1—Identify the key factors necessary to develop effective supply chain management for food exports to Japan.Nil98Frank Small and Associates (now called SOFRE S FSA)48,94048,940F irst payment $24,470 June 97paym ent = $24,470 June 98Focus group testing of Quarantine Week 98 campaign products in March 98OGIA supported selection of Blue Moon.Due to previous work for AQIS, tight time frame and fact Blue Moon were rec'd by QGIA no other firms approachedOnly Blue Moon—OGIA recommendedBlue Moon8,5001998/99To tal amount for year $138,000Media exposure profile on international travellers for use in communication campaign—July 98OGIA assisted AQIS in getting MCGC approval to use ACNielsen for quantitative research for the duration of campaignACNielsen approved MCGC supplier of quantitative research for duration of campaign—until 2001.n/aA C Nielsenn/a3,000Evaluation of Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) Top Watch quarantine awareness campaign—August to Nov 98OGIA recm'd firms, were involved in selection process and sat in on final report presentation.Three firms sent briefs, only two submitted.Two proposals received.McGreg or Marketing39,00039,000Focus group testing of campaign advertising material in Sept 98OGIA assisted AQIS in gaining MCGC approval for Blue Moon to carry out qualitative research for duration of the quarantine awareness campaign.Only Blue Moon—approved by MCGC to undertake qualitative research for duration of campaign.Only Blue Moon—approved by MCGCBlue Moon18,500Plan Communications relating to the goals of the Integrated Rural Policy Package (later called Agriculture Advancing Australia) Aug 97Nil6Solutions Marketing and Research Group Pty Ltd31,50031,5001998/99Pretest materials for the launch of the Action Plan for Australian agriculture June 98Nil3PR Plus Pty Ltd7,0007,000Delicatessen Program Phase 1 Research to understand Australia's current capacity to develop new agricultural products and determine how information on Asian market opportunities is currently communicated to food producers and the relevance of this information to their needs. Included literature review, stakeholder and producer /exporter consultation.Nil108Frank Small and Associates (now called SOFRE S FSA)39,00039,000F irst payment = $19,500 Aug 97Final payment =$19,50 0 Jan 993215(Question No. 406)4063215Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:(1) Can the "comprehensive, adequate and representative" reserve system defined in the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) be altered; if so, what is the process.(2) Is it a fact that at least two of the possible four corridors for the railway line associated with the proposed magnesite mine in north-west Tasmania pass through RFA reserves. (3) If the Commonwealth refuses to allow the railway to use routes that traverse RFA reserves, what amount of compensation would the Commonwealth be liable to pay, if the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is passed.3215Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The RFA provides (Attachment 6, Cl. 5 and 17) for the precise boundaries of the CAR reserve system to be further defined, recognising the need to translate those boundaries from the RFA map, to actual boundaries on the ground. The RFA also defines those circumstances under which boundaries of informal reserves can be altered while maintain ing overall CAR outcomes (Cl. 57). The RFA commits Tasmania to the management of the identified reserves according to the objectives and purposes identified in Attachment 7, to maintain CAR values (Cl. 51).(2) The Tasmanian Government advises that at this stage the indicative corridor of the Government's preferred route does not pass through any of the RFA Formal Reserves.(3) The Commonwealth's commitment to compensation is set out in Clause 95 of the Tasmanian RFA.3216(Question No. 412)4123216O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) (a) When was chalkbrood disease first detected in Australia; (b) where was it detected; and (c) how was it detected.(2) (a) When was European foulbrood disease first detected in Australia; (b) where was it detected; and (c) how was it detected.(3) When was the first draft of a protocol to enable the export of honey from Australia to New Zealand first provided to New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture.(4) Can a copy of that draft protocol be provided.(5) Did that protocol propose a heat treatment regime to address the potential problem of chalkbrood disease; if so: (a) how was that heat treatment regime developed; and (b) who developed the regime; if not, why not.(6) (a) When did the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture provide a response to that draft protocol; and (b) what were the details of that response.(7) (a) Did the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), or any other agency on behalf of AQIS, undertake further work to refine the heat treatment regime to address chalkbrood disease in response to concerns from the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture.(8) (a) When did that work take place; (b) who undertook the work; and (c) when were the results of that work submitted to the New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture for its consideration.(9) How many submissions were made to the New Zealand authorities concerning the heat treatment regime.(10) (a) On each occasion what was the response to the refined heat treatment regime; and (b) what additional work followed. (11) (a) How many subsequent draft protocols to facilitate the export of honey to New Zealand have been submitted to the New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture; (b) when were they submitted; and (c) when did New Zealand respond.(12) Can copies of each draft protocol submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture be provided.3216Alston, 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) Chalkbrood disease was first visually detected, as an abnormality in brood, by a Queensland Department of Primary Industries apiary officer in beehives near Warwick in south-east Queensland in January 1993.(2) European Foulbrood disease was first visually detected, as an abnormality in brood, by apiary officers simultaneously in beehives in Victoria and South Australia in 1977.(3) A proposal for the export of Australian honey to New Zealand was first provided by AQIS to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) on 24 July 1991.(4) A copy of the proposal is provided.Concerns expressed by New Zealand authorities in respect of Australian honey imports were principally for the presence of European Foulbrood disease (EFB), not Chalkbrood disease, as the latter was already present in New Zealand. The AQIS proposal of 24 July 1991 included a heat treatment regime for EFB, based upon the published work of Wootten, et al (1981), describing the thermal destruction of the causative organism of EFB, Melisococcus (Streptococcus) pluton;(b) The proposal did not address chalkbrood as the New Zealand authorities were not concerned about that disease, which was present in New Zealand.(5) (a) In response to the AQIS proposal of 24 July 1991 New Zealand provided draft conditions for the importation of honey from Australia on 20 July 1992.(b) The MAF draft import conditions essentially endorsed the AQIS proposal and the parameters for the heat treatment(s) described in that proposal. According to the MAF letter which accompanied the import conditions, they had been approved by the Chief Veterinary Officer of New Zealand. However, the letter also referred to a period of approximately one month for comment upon the draft import conditions from members of the New Zealand beekeeping industry before the conditions would be formalised. (6) As reported in the answer to question 5 above, New Zealand concerns have been principally for the presence of EFB disease, not Chalkbrood disease. In October 1992, ie subsequent to the provision of the draft import conditions from New Zealand, MAF advised that it had received technical information at conflict with the evidence on which the draft import conditions for Australian honey were based. On 4 December 1992 these concerns were further elaborated by MAF and the following was requested:(i) full documentation of the epidemiology of EFB including the infectious dose;(ii) documentation regarding the safety margins in the recommended heat treatment(s) for EFB and advice as to whether any studies had been done which conflicted with these recommended heat treatments; and(iii) documentation on any studies investigating whether different strains of American Foulbrood disease (AFB) existed within Australia and New Zealand, documentation on the incidence of AFB in Australia and any assurances that could be provided that Australian honey did not contain AFB spores.There was no request for a refinement of the heat treatment regime. AQIS provided the information requested by MAF on 11 December 1992.(7) Refer answer to question 6.(8) As previously indicated, apart from the query regarding the safety margin in the recommended heat treatment(s) for EFB, which was addressed by the AQIS correspondence to MAF of 11 December 1992, AQIS has provided no further technical information relating to the proposed heat treatment regime as AQIS considered that the regime detailed in the proposal of 24 July 1991 proposal, as subsequently endorsed by MAF's draft import conditions of 20 July 1992, was and is scientifically valid.AQIS made several enquiries of MAF in relation to the finalisation of an import protocol since 11 December 1992 but MAF did not provide a positive response.In August 1993, MAF proposed to undertake a full quantitative analysis of the risks associated with the importation of Australian honey. The risk analysis report was finalised in January 1994 but concluded that technical issues remained unresolved. However, in response to ongoing requests from AQIS, a draft decision on the proposal to import honey from Australia was provided by MAF in December 1995. This draft decision concluded that Australian honey would be permitted entry into New Zealand only if derived from areas or States known to be free from EFB.(9) Refer answers to questions 7 and 9. (10) (a) Since the MAF decision on the proposal to import honey from Australia was received by AQIS in December 1995, one application has been submitted by AQIS This application related to Western Australian honey and was based on that State's freedom from EFB (the only Australian State with this status).(b) The application for WA honey was submitted to MAF on 1 December 1998.(c) MAF responded with further technical queries on 12 February 1999 and 23 February 1999.A copy of the application for WA honey is available from the Senate Table Office.3217(Question No. 414)4143217O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) Does Tasmania provide quarantine services on behalf of the Commonwealth under an agency agreement.(2) When was that agreement entered into and what is the life of that agreement.(3) What funding has been provided to Tasmania under that agreement in each year of its operation.(4) Has there been a review of this arrangement; if so: (a) when was that review commenced; (b) who undertook the review; and (c) when was it completed.(5) Can a copy of the subsequent report be provided.(6) Have the recommendations contained in that report been the subject of discussions between the Federal and Tasmanian Goverments; if so: (a) when did those discussions take place; (b) who participated in those discussions; and (c)when were they concluded.(7) What changes have been made to the agency agreement between the Tasmanian and Federal Goverments as a result of the review process.3217Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) Yes. The provision of export inspection and certification and quarantine services is covered under an agreement between the Comonwealth of Australia and the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment.(2) The agreement commenced on 1 July 1992 and remains in force at this time. (3) Funding has been provided under the agreement as follows:Financial YearTotal Amount ($)1992/931,573,8031993/941,319,2841994/951,422,2031995/961,427,6021996/971,450,4581997/981,406,7321998/99 (to 9/2/99)495,591Total9,095,673(4) (a) Yes. A review of current arrangements in place for the delivery of international quarantine and export inspection services was undertaken in Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory commencing in August 1997.(b) The review was conducted by senior officers from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the respective States and Territory.(c) The report was completed in May 1998 when the relevant Chief Executive Officers agreed to it.(5) A copy of the report has been provided to Senator O'Brien and copies are available from the Senate Table Office.(6) Formal correspondence was forwarded to the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and and Environment, Tasmania on 7 July 1998 seeking endorsement of the report, with subsequent advice being received from the Tasmanian Minister to that affect dated 27 July 1998.(7) No changes have been made to the existing agreement, however, the preparation of a "new" agreement is underway which will encompass relevant changes outlined in the above report.Negotiations on the agreement between senior officers of AQIS and the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment are continuing.3218(Question No. 415)4153218Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KnowlesTH4WALP10 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1999:(a) how much of the $3,151,180 provided by ATSIC to support the Yorta Yorta Native Title claim has been paid to the law firm Arnold Bloch and Leibler Solicitors;(b) what are the total legal fees paid by ATSIC to Arnold Bloch and Leibler Solicitors for their involvement in the Yorta Yorta claim; and(c) what are the total legal fees paid by ATSIC to Arnold Bloch and Leibler Solicitors on this, or any other matter, in the past 4 years.3218Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:(a) To date, of the $3,301,180 provided by ATSIC to support the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim, $2,570,000 has been paid to the law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler Solicitors;(b) Allocation of funds for legal costs associated with the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim on an annual basis is set out in the following table:1993/941994/951995/961996/971997/981998/99$250,000$250,000$200,000$860,000$860,000$300,000While all 1998/99 funds allocated for the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim have been committed, $150,000 of the funds committed for legal support from Arnold Bloch Leibler is yet to be released.(c) ATSIC has paid $2,764,826 in legal fees to Arnold Bloch Leibler since 1993/94. In addition to the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim, ATSIC has paid Arnold Bloch Leibler fees amounting to$106,826 in 1996/97 and 1997/98 for legal advice on the amendments to the Native Title Act 1993; and$88,000 in 1998 for legal and policy assistance to the Queensland Indigenous Working Group.3219(Question No. 494)4943219Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:Have the two-envelope tendering requirement and industry impact statements been abolished following the review of Commonwealth purchasing arrangements; if so, what was the rationale for the changes.3219Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Two envelope tendering and the industry impact statements were abolished in December 1997. This was in response to industry and agency concerns about the cost and complexity of the requirement.3220(Question No. 495)4953220Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many complaints have been received by the Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Service since its establishment in March 1998.(2) On how many occasions have complaints been upheld.3220Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Service has received 29 complaints since March 1998.(2) The Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Service facilitates discussion between the parties involved. It does not have legal powers to uphold complaints. That is the role of either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the courts.