1999-03-253912SENATE322101999-03-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous322109:30:003221Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Madam President, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter of the distribution of material in the chamber. Whilst not doubting the intentions of Senator Brown in sending round this document this morning, if I wanted to put a magazine promoting mining or something around the chamber would I have to approach you to do this? What is normal practice? Would you mind telling us?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have not seen the document. I shall look at it and make a statement later.09:31:003221Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek indulgence to make a brief explanation. Senators will note that I have motion No. 154 on the Notice Paper to be dealt with next Tuesday, and the distribution of that booklet is to allow senators to be informed about the contents of that motion so that they can be fully informed when the vote or debate comes up on Tuesday.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would think it should be distributed through the normal mail system and not in the chamber, but I shall look into the matter.Committees322132213221O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move that the Accountability Principles 1998 and the Accreditation Grant Principles 1998, made under section 96-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Accountability Principles 1998 made under s.96-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997Accreditation Grant Principles 1998 made under s.96-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997The Committee has a number of concerns with these Principles including:no requirement for prior notification of possible sanctions;unclear mandatory provisions;appointment of officials with no criteria or qualifications for appointment;lack of safeguards against incrimination;unclear sanctions for failure to comply with mandatory requirements;lack of provision for legal representation;possible breach of privacy principles;no requirement to advise of review rights;unclear drafting; andlack of safeguards for right of entry by officials.The Committee has written to the Minister for advice.Notices32213221Senator Jacinta Collins to move, on 22 April:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, in order to help protect the entitlements of employees.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the arrest and continuing detention of three Greenpeace activists, including two Australians, following a peaceful `banner drop' protest against the use of toxic PVC chemicals in children's toys at the Tokyo Toy Fair on 18 March 1999, and (ii) the raid by 100 police at the 10-person office of Greenpeace Japan on 23 March 1999;(b) records its concern about: (i) the potential for Japan's detention procedures to be used to stifle peaceful dissent, and (ii) the intimidation of Greenpeace Japan and its supporters; and (c) calls on the Japanese Government to release immediately the three Greenpeace activists on bail and to try them without delay.Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 1999:Whether the Native Title Act 1993 , as amended, is consistent with:(a) Australia's international legal obligations, in particular the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and(b) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , and the principles underlying it.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), no later than 3 pm on 23 April 1999, all documents not already tabled relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal from 1 October 1998 to 18 February 1999.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises that the Liberal Party, both state and federal, supports the proposed Kooragang Island international airport;(b) notes the anti-jobs opposition by the federal Australian Labor Party (ALP) to the Kooragang proposal and compares this to the support for the proposal by the New South Wales Premier (Mr Carr);(c) notes that the ALP Member for Newcastle (Mr Gaudry) is opposed to the Kooragang development and is also, therefore, anti-jobs;(d) recognises that the ALP Member for Charlestown and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development (Mr Face) was originally opposed and has now decided to support the proposed airport at Kooragang following the Premier's about-face; and(e) is aware that the Carr Government is facing a state election on this matter and that its position is not supported by the federal branch of the ALP nor by relevant local ALP members of parliament.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think that is a little long and contains more information than a notice of motion should contain. I shall look at it.3222Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 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.Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 146 (relating to the Government's proposal to reduce the price of diesel), 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 Allison) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 (relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee), general business notices of motion nos 96, 98 and 99 (uranium mining) and no. 145 (the response by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to an order for the production of documents) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business32223222Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. today:No. 4— Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998No. 6— Airports Amendment Bill 1999Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999No. 7— Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 199909:37:003222Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The two bills that Senator Campbell read out were in addition to the ones on the Notice Paper . Have we already put through a motion in relation to Nos 4, 5 and 6? Secondly, I want to clarify whether the government are aware that we still are to be briefed on No. 7 on financial management. It has not yet been agreed to by the Greens, but we have agreed to allow it on the Notice Paper at this stage.09:38:003223Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—What you have said is quite right. We are listing it, you are about to be briefed on it and you have agreed that it be listed. The other item, Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , has not been introduced, and so that requires us to move this motion. You are right, items 4, 5 and 6 were already listed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices32233223Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the disallowance of the Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business32233223Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) general business notice of motion No. 159 standing in the name of Senator Evans relating to aged care reforms; and(2) consideration of government documents.Bills3223s2033223Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.322309:40:003223Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—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:This bill is designed to give the Parliament, through the establishment of a Joint Committee on the ABC, power to accept or reject the Minister for Communications' recommendations for appointment to the ABC Board.The bill will ensure far greater accountability on ABC Board appointments, no matter what the political persuasion of the Government of the day.Since the Coalition came into Government in 1996, their attack on the ABC has been relentless. After losing the 1993 election, the Coalition chose to blame the ABC, and they have made more and more allegations of bias against it ever since.This fervent attack has even been made against individual ABC employees.Until the lead-up to the election in 1996, it was the ABC who moderated the pre-election debates between leaders of the Labor Party and the Coalition. In the debates for the 1996 election, the Coalition refused to accept the ABC's moderator, saying they preferred one from a commercial network. The Coalition then felt free to pronounce that they won the 1996 election despite the ABC.For most of us, of course, these perceptions of bias are absolutely ridiculous, but for the Government, they are very real.The last year has been particularly dreadful. Since April 1998 the ABC has been subjected to relentless allegations of bias.The Minister for Communications alleged that the ABC has not adequately addressed left wing bias. He has tried to force the ABC to change the way in which it handles complaints, without any due regard for its editorial policies. More seriously, the Minister's actions threaten the independence of the ABC as an independent statutory authority.The ABC has lost a total of $66 million in funding since the Coalition won office in 1996. It probably would have lost even more had it not been for fears of a backlash in rural and regional areas, some of which rely solely on the ABC's broadcasting services.But in more practical ways, the ABC has suffered even more than the 66 million dollar budget cuts it has been forced to endure. The ABC has received only a tiny proportion of the funding it requires to meet the costs of digital conversion. The Corporation has been promised about $20 million over four years, when they require at least $167 million. The Government has promised to underwrite a further $24 million.The estimates of the cost of digitisation of the ABC were, of course, carefully checked by independent auditors, Arthur Andersen, and were found to be accurate.They even agreed that the sale of real estate to fund the costs of digital conversion was not in the best interests of the ABC.What makes the costs of funding the ABC seem so large?Simply, the ABC is a national television and radio broadcaster.The ABC runs one national television station (metropolitan, rural and regional) and six national networks. The ABC is not just a television broadcaster operating only in capital cities.A technological conversion of this degree will be expensive and the Government has a duty to fund the ABC properly for this conversion, particularly when there is no option. Under the law, the ABC must convert to digital technology.The Coalition's agenda on the ABC is clear.It now has very strong friends and allies on the ABC Board, but it wants more.These are not accidental occurrences. The Government is very careful about who it choses to place on the Board, including, of course, a former Victorian President of the Liberal Party. Such appointments do not lead to a public perception that the ABC Board is independent from government.Interestingly, this is exactly the type of behaviour the Minister accused the former Labor Government of in 1994. Let me remind the Senate what Senator Alston said at the time:"[It will be] a great disappointment to all those who are looking to the Government to take this opportunity to make appointments to the board on the basis of merit and to boost the community standing and reputation of the ABC. . . This blatant board stacking exercise endangers the independence and integrity of the ABC and has the potential to do grave danger to Australia's international reputation" (Hansard, 30.06.94)He also said, three days earlier that:"It is absolutely critical that the ABC is not compromised in its work and that it does has a genuine and impartial board" (Hansard, 27.06.94)The Prime Minister is also in record for stating that: "More than ever before Australia needs an independent, fearless, professional Australian Broadcasting Corporation". . . and that. . . "in appointing new commissioners to the ABC, they will in fact be people who will act without fear or favour, that they will in fact be people who will be completely dispassionate so far as political comment is concerned" (Hansard, 05.05.83).The Democrats know that the majority of Australians appreciate what the ABC is, and what it does. It is one of Australia's most valued cultural institutions, and has a proud record of offering high quality programs across a wide range of areas including news and current affairs, the arts, drama, children's programming, sport and comedy.Australians have taken a very dim view of the cuts to the ABC budget.They have taken a very dim view of the changes to programming which have resulted from these cuts.And they have taken a very dim view of the Government's party-political appointments to the Board. They know that all this erodes the ABC's independence.We all remember the Government's promises in the lead up to the 1996 election—that they would not politicise the ABC Board, and that they would not cut the ABC's budget.We are left, though, with painful reality. The Minister is making appointments to the ABC Board which are clearly biased, and clearly designed to cement support for the Coalition's policy agenda.The Government, with the Minister leading the charge, has sought to override the ABC's independence by attempting to direct the ABC's program choice and type, most notably on television. Cricket matches, the NSW Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, lectures by former Prime Ministers, interviews with Aboriginal leaders and the coverage of the Waterfront dispute have been among his favourite targets.And he wants the Board to agree with him.The Minister's attempts to prove the ABC was inefficient through the Mansfield review failed, and Coalition allegations of bias have also failed to convince a deeply sceptical Australian community.Unhappily for the ABC and its audiences, though, the threat against the ABC of further Board stacking and further budget cuts are still very real.That is why I am tabling this very important bill today.This bill—to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act—will ensure that the Government's ideologically driven hate for the ABC is at least curtailed. It will ensure transparency of ABC Board appointments. It will ensure that the Parliament has a proper say in the funding appropriated to this very important public institution.This is especially important in the context of conversion from analogue to digital technology and the increasing use of online services.The bill establishes a Joint Committee on the ABC who will approve and recommend appointments to the ABC Board. The Committee is established to ensure the Minister no longer has sole discretion in recommending Board appointments to the Governor-General.The Committee will have 10 members, with five members each from the House of Representatives and the Senate. Appointments will be made in the same manner as for joint select committees, so that minor parties can be involved. Neither the Minister, president nor deputy president, speaker, nor deputy speaker can be members of the Committee.ABC FundingThe Committee will examine the annual report of the Corporation and undertake to have parliament investigate issues arising therein, should the need arise. It will review the ABC's annual appropriation and make its own recommendation on the level of appropriation the ABC.Appointments to the BoardThe Committee may also approve or reject a recommendation for appointment to the Board, and has up to 44 sitting days in which to do so. The Committee may ask an applicant to appear before it to answer questions for the purposes of clarification.The person chosen by the Committee for a position on the ABC Board should be appropriately qualified, having had experience in communications, the provision of broadcasting services or management. They may have expertise in financial or technical matters, cultural or other interests in relation to the provision of public and or broadcasting services. This is not changed from the ABC Acts' current requirements.In instances where the Committee does not endorse the Minister's recommendation for appointment, or where the Minister does not accept the Committee's decision, a report will be presented to both Houses of Parliament.We believe this is the fairest and most appropriate method for making ABC Board appointments. The Joint Committee will be multi-partisan, with members from all parties and from both houses of Parliament.Of course there is more the Democrats would like to do for the ABC. There is more we would like to do to support the tireless campaigners for a free and independent ABC—like the various states' Friends of the ABC who have continued over the last three years, to raise public awareness of the effects the Government's polices are having on the Corporation.We would like to see:. The ABC's annual funding restored to at least pre-1996 levels.. Provision of adequate additional funding to enable the Corporation to convert to digital technology for radio and television. Only with the provision of this funding will the ABC be able to meet its Charter obligations.. Proper levels of funding to allow the ABC to effectively plan its broadcasting schedules, and maintain and expand its in-house program and documentary making capacity, and to meet targets for Australian and local content.. Independent operation so it can continue to simultaneously complement and be a real alternative to, commercial free-to-air broadcasters without fear of government interference.. Reopening of the Cox Peninsula Short Wave radio transmission facility. It would take just $1.6 million for the people of the Asia Pacific—our neighbours—to receive independent news and information in their own languages.We call on the Government to make these commitments in the lead up to the May Budget.In tabling this bill today, the Democrats believe it represents a step in the right direction to ensuring the maintenance of a truly independent Australian Broadcasting Corporation.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Committees32253225Motion (by Senator O'Brien at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to: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.3225Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to: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 . Committees32263226322610000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing.Ordered that the report be printed.Motion (by Senator Parer) proposed:That the Senate endorses the committee's recommendation that it agree to changes proposed by the Minister for Finance and Administration in the classification of items in the Appropriation Bills in consequence of acrual budgeting.Debate (on motion by Senator Margetts) adjourned.322632263226O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the fourth report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 4 of 1999 dated 24 March 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills3226r618Billsr605Billsr706Billsr704Billsr7053226Bills received from the House of Representatives.3226Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have two of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.322609:45:003226Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998The substantive amendments proposed in this bill were introduced into Parliament in June 1997 as the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901:(i) to provide a special approach for determining normal values of allegedly dumped goods from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy when it is established that the domestic selling price of those goods is subject to government price control as announced by the Government on 12 March 1997;(ii) to provide a new methodology for determining the normal value of allegedly dumped goods where the goods are exported from a country in the process of transition to a market economy and a raw material input into the goods which accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the goods is supplied by a State owned;(iii) to clarify provisions of these acts which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected; and(iv) to replace the terms "preliminary finding" and "Anti-Dumping Act" with the terms "preliminary affirmative determination" and "Dumping Duty Act" (respectively) to ensure consistency with the amendments to the Customs Act 1901 implemented by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998.The first three items were the subject of the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 which lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 31 August 1998. The last is necessary because of the abolition of the Anti-Dumping Authority by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998.The amendments to the normal value provisions in section 269TAC of the Customs Act 1901 ("the Customs Act") provide for a case by case approach to be taken by the Minister in inquiries into the alleged dumping of products from countries that are in the process of transition to a market economy. Under the proposed amendments, if the Minister is satisfied that the exporter's domestic selling prices of the product under investigation are subject to government control or substantial government control, normal values may be ascertained by reference to other relevant information, which may include the selling prices of like goods in a "surrogate" country.Section 269TAC of the Customs Act provides for the assessment of the `normal value' of imported goods, for the purpose of determining whether the goods have been exported to Australia at less than that value (thereby dumped). The structure of the section has been described as establishing a hierarchy of methodologies by which normal values are determined. Investigating authorities must progressively work through each of the prescribed methodologies until a point is reached at which a normal value can be determined.Until the latter part of last year subsection 269TAC(4) was utilised by investigating authorities to ascertain normal values for goods exported from command economies by reference to information obtained in a "surrogate" country. In November of last year legal advice was obtained as to the scope of subsection 269TAC(4). That advice confirmed that the section was severely limited in its application. Its stringent tests require that the Government of the country of export has at least a substantial monopoly of all of the trade of the country—not just in terms of the goods under investigation, AND must also substantially influence the domestic price of all goods in that country.Although the governments of economies which are in a state of transition from a command economy to a market economy may still maintain controls over the domestic selling prices of a significant number of sensitive products, it cannot be said that the extent of the control falls within the ambit of subsection 269TAC(4). Clearly, in such economies the government has moved from a position in which it maintained a substantial monopoly over all of the trade of the country.As subsection 269TAC(4) can have no further application to economies which are considered to be in transition from a command economy to a market economy, the determination of the normal values for exports from such economies, as a matter of law, must be made in accordance with the remaining provisions of section 269TAC. These provisions do not distinguish between "market economies" and those which are considered to be "in transition". Therefore, normal values for exports from economies which are considered to be in transition from a command economy to a market economy must be ascertained by the application of the same methodologies that are required to be applied in the ascertainment of normal values for exports from countries such as the United States of America and Germany. That is, there is presently no flexibility available for investigating authorities to treat exports from economies which are in transition differently from exports from other countries.Investigating authorities require the flexibility to proceed to a methodology similar to that provided in s. 269TAC(6) (ie have regard to all relevant information) as soon as they are satisfied that the domestic selling prices of the goods under consideration are subject to government control. The proposed amendments therefore aim to confer such flexibility upon Customs.The provisions contained within the bill will operate in the following manner. If it is identified that the domestic selling price of the goods under consideration is subject to a price control situation the normal value of the goods exported to Australia is to be determined having regard to all relevant information which may include information obtained from a surrogate country.Absent any such price control situation, the proposed amendments will allow the Minister to proceed to examine the cost of production of the goods exported to Australia. If the Minister is satisfied that a raw material accounts for more than 10 per cent of the costs of producing or manufacturing the exported goods (and is thereby considered to be significant) and that the raw material is supplied by an enterprise which is wholly owned by a government of the exporting country the cost of the particular item could be ignored and, for normal value purposes, its cost could be estimated by the Minister by reference to other relevant information which could, but need not necessarily, include the cost of that item in a surrogate country.To ensure that Australia is not in breach of its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the amendment provides for regulations to be made which will provide that the new methodology for calculating normal values will not apply in respect of specified countries.The bill also contains amendments which, in combination with those in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, clarify the operation of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Act 1975 which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected. The amendments make it clear that such interim duties can be imposed, pending final assessment of any dumping or countervailing duties, notwithstanding that the actual export price and normal value, or the fact that a countervailable subsidy has been received, have not yet been ascertained.Although these amendments are to be taken to have commenced on 1 January 1993, the date on which the interim dumping and countervailing duties were introduced, they will not require importers to pay an amount of dumping duty beyond that which has previously been demanded. The amendments merely seek to ensure that approximately $12 million in interim duties collected since 1 January 1993 is not subject to legal challenge.This bill also contains amendments which will replace the terms "preliminary finding" and "Anti-Dumping Act" with the terms "preliminary affirmative determination" and "Dumping Duty Act" (respectively). These amendments will ensure consistency with the amendments to the Customs Act implemented by the Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998.CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1998This bill amends the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 to clarify, in combination with the amendments to the Customs Act 1901 proposed in the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998, provisions of these acts which relate to the manner in which interim dumping and countervailing duties are collected.The amendments make it clear that such interim duties can be imposed pending final assessment of any dumping or countervailing duties, notwithstanding that the actual export price and normal value, or the fact that a countervailable subsidy has been received, have not yet been ascertained.These amendments have a retrospective commencement of 1 January 1993, the date on which interim dumping and countervailing duties were introduced, to ensure that approximately $12 million collected in interim duties since 1 January 1993 is not subject to legal challenge.APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1998-99In Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, appropriations totalling $1,129,000 additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99 are sought for recurrent and capital expenditures of the Parliamentary Departments. This amount is partly offset by savings of $570,000 in the appropriations for the running costs of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department made by Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99.The increases sought relate to primarily to increases in the running costs for the Departments of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Reporting Staff of $90,000, $539,00 and $341,000 respectively. These increases in running costs are largely as a result of a higher carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98 than anticipated at the time of the Budget.APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1998-99This is a historic occasion for the Parliament. It is the last time on which cash based annual appropriations will be presented for the Parliament's consideration.The next Budget that is to be brought down in May 1999 will be prepared on an accrual basis consistent with the recommendation of the National Committee of Audit. Under that framework, the focus in the Appropriation Bills will be on. achieving agency outcomes, rather than the current input focus; and. funding for the full price of agency outputs or expenses estimated to be incurred, rather than merely estimates of cash payments to be made.Taken together, these changes will disclose to the Parliament the full costs of the Government's activities and allow a greater focus by the Parliament on performance of agencies.Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprise the Additional Estimates for 1998-99.In the bills, the Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1998-99 under Appropriation Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act.The additional appropriations in these three bills total some $1,638 million; $1,382 million is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $255 million in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and about a million dollars in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2).These amounts are partly offset by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1998-99. Reflecting the Government's determination to improve the efficiency of continuing programs, these savings, amounting to some $379 million in gross terms, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document "Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations", which has been distributed to honourable senators.After allowing for prospective savings, the total appropriations sought represent a net increase of $1,260 million in appropriations for 1998-99, an increase of about three and a half per cent on the amounts made available through the annual appropriations at the time of the 1998-99 Budget.Honourable senators should note, however, that this increase does not translate to a similar increase in estimated outlays as:(a) the appropriations include amounts which are functionally classified as net advances or financing transactions; and(b) the figures relate only to expenditures financed by annual appropriations, which comprise about 25 per cent of Budget headline outlays. The figures do not include variations to estimates of expenditures from special appropriations, transactions of the Reserved Money, Commercial Activities or Loan Funds; nor do they incorporate any revisions to receipt items which are offset within outlays.I turn now to the main areas for which the Government seeks additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 to meet payments for the ordinary annual services of the Government.Running costs appropriations provide for the recurrent and minor capital costs of agencies in providing Government services. The total gross supplementation for running costs for all departments and of $609 million. After allowing for estimated savings in running cost appropriations of $16 million, the net increase in the provision for running costs of $593 million represents an increase of about five per cent on the funding for running costs included in Appropriation Act (No. 1).Principal factors contributing to this increase are:. higher than anticipated carryovers of unspent moneys from 1997-98 of some $136 million;. borrowings against the forward estimates of $152 million; and. for the Department of Defence, a $119 million reallocation, within the Defence global budget, from programme appropriations to running costs to meet changing priorities.In gross terms, some $209 million additional estimates are sought for the Defence Portfolio in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). In addition to the supplementation of Defence running costs I have already mentioned, this figure includes:. $22 million for compensation and legal expenses in respect of the Military Compensation Scheme; . $8 million for defence production for new capability and production payments for High Explosives facilities at the Mulwala site; and. $58 million for defence housing to allow the Defence Housing Authority to reposition itself in the market.The gross supplementation for Defence have been partly offset by reductions of $148 million in other Defence annual appropriations, giving a net increase in funding from that source of some $61 million.In addition, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) includes provision for:. $83 million for labour market training and assistance largely attributable to carryovers of funds from 1997-98 and supplementary funding for enhancement of Job Network Services announced in August 1998;. $65 million for payment to the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (Centrelink) for the delivery of income support services reflecting changes to welfare payment cycle, supplementation for IT leasing and additional funding for medical assessments to determine eligibility for the disability support pension;. $32 million for child care assistance reflecting a reduction in expected savings due to a delay in the implementation of the childcare smartcard and therefore a change in the timing of childcare payments to families from two weeks in advance to fortnightly in arrears;. $10 million to the Australian Electoral Commission for the costs of conducting elections, referendums and industrial ballots, largely attributable to the Commission's costs associated with the recent Federal election and the delayed election in Newcastle following the death of one of the candidates;. $39 million for contestable hearing services through a voucher system as a result of higher than expected demand for voucher services and increases in services and device fees negotiated for new contract arrangements with service providers and manufacturers on 1 November 1998;. $47 million for capital assistance for residential care facilities for older people largely reflecting commitments for additional funding the Government made during the last Parliament together with a rollover from 1997-98 of capital funding for industry restructure;. $19 million for bounty payments under the Bounty (Computers) Act 1984 to cover an anticipated backlog of outstanding claims as manufacturers lodge claims prior to the expiry of this assistance programme in 1998; and . $248 million for the servicing the debt of the Australian National Railways Commission principally as a result of the decision that, consequent upon the sale of ANR, the Commonwealth would assume future responsibility for its debt.The balance of some $140 million in the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is made up of minor variations across a range of programs in most departments and agencies.APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1998-99In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99, appropriations totalling $255 million—additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1998-99—are sought for capital works and services; payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; advances and loans; and for other services. The proposed appropriations are required to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in the Budget appropriation measures.The additions are necessitated by certain cost and price increases that have occurred since the Budget, together with other commitments that have been made by the Government. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1998-99 includes:. $16 million for rural adjustment largely as a result of a carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98 to 1998-99 and the declaration of exceptional circumstances in Duaringa, Cobar, Monaro C, Wilcannia and Wentworth;. $3 million for assistance to the sugar industry with funding allocated over four years for research into increasing the sugar content levels of sugar cane and related research;. $6 million for assistance to specialist pigmeat processors in the pork industry through the pigmeat processing grants programme;. $15 million for computer equipment for the Department of Family and Community Services;. $100 million to assist people and small businesses who were adversely affected by the interruption to the Victorian gas supply;. $11 million for a grant and $4 million for a loan to IIF Investments Pty Ltd for the Innovative Investment Fund program;. $20 million for payment to South Australia for the runway extension at Adelaide Airport reflecting a carryover of unspent funds from 1997-98;. $10 million for payment to the Northern Territory for continuation of the Northern Territory Health Indigenous Infrastructure Programme to improve living conditions and health standards for indigenous people; and. $19 million for a community education and information programme on reform to the Australian tax system.The remaining $51 million included in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) comprises minor increases in a number of programs across a range of portfolios.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 and Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 be listed together on the Notice Paper as a separate order of the day.Bills3230r743Billsr7273230Bills received from the House of Representatives.3230Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.323009:46:003230Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—REFERENDUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill contains amendments relating to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, some of which will be effective for the purposes of the 1999 referenda on the republic issue only.The Constitutional Convention met in February 1998 to consider whether Australia should become a republic, which republic model should be put to voters to consider against the present system of government, and in what timeframe any change might take place. The Convention supported the adoption of a republic based on a `bipartisan appointment of the President model' and recommended that the model, and other related changes supported by the Convention, be put to the people at a constitutional referendum.The Convention also recommended that, prior to the referendum being put to the people, the Government undertake a public education programme directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum on the republic.The Government has confirmed that it will put the Convention's preferred model to a referendum in 1999 and that it will support public information activities in relation to the referendum. The Government has made it clear that the republic question is one for the Australian people to decide. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government and the proposal for change. The Government believes that public funding should be made available to support a vigorous and engaging public presentation of the arguments for and against change.The public information activities associated with the referendum will involve three phases.The first phase, timed to coincide with the consideration of the referendum legislation in the Parliament, is to consist of wide distribution of a `plain English' public education kit explaining the existing system of government, the Convention's preferred republic model and the referendum process together with an advertising campaign to publicise its availability. It is intended that the information be available in other formats tailored to particular audiences, including in translation (up to 16 languages), on the internet, and in alternative formats for the sight impaired. An expert group will be established to clear the information prior to publication to ensure balance, fairness and accuracy. The advertising campaign will provide a reminder of the forthcoming referendum and promote the availability of the information. The aim of this phase is to ensure that balanced, factual information is made widely available to assist electors to understand the issues before they vote in the referendum.The second, or `campaign' phase will occur in the 3-4 week period leading to the referendum voting day. The Government will make available $15m for national campaigns to promote the arguments for and against the republic model put at the referendum.Two committees have been appointed by the Government to manage the campaigns both drawn from delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention. One includes delegates who support change in line with the Convention's preferred model and the other delegates who oppose it. The Government is conscious that the republic issue should not be one for politicians alone. The Convention delegates are a broadly representative group with a high public standing on the republic issue.Each committee will plan its own campaign and manage expenditure of up to $7.5m. The committee will develop advertisements to be run through media outlets of their choice in the three to four weeks before the referendum, which is likely to be held in November. The advertisements will be placed through Government processes, but the Government's checks will be limited to ensuring that the proposed advertisements do not infringe statutory requirements or accepted standards for advertising.Public funding for the committees will allow robust public debate on the arguments for and against change. As with the provision of public funding in election campaigns, the purpose is to ensure that the alternative views can be presented directly to the voters.The Australian Electoral Commission will have responsibility for the conduct of the referendum process after the Constitution Alteration Bills have been passed by the Parliament, including any advertising associated with the process of voting (for example, to inform voters about enrolment deadlines and particular voting arrangements). The Commission will be responsible for the third phase of public information activities, the physical distribution of the official `yes' and `no' cases to all voters as provided for by the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act).Clause 4 of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill (the bill) would amend the operation of subsection 11(4) of the Referendum Act. Subsection 11(4) imposes restrictions on expenditure by the Commonwealth in relation to constitutional referenda. It provides that:(4) The Commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to:(a) the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlets referred to in this section, or the preparation and distribution of translations into other languages of material contained in those pamphlets;(aa) the preparation and distribution of presentations of that material in forms suitable for the visually impaired;(b) the provision by the Electoral Commission of other information relating to, or relating to the effect of, the proposed law or(c) the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament, of members of the staff of members of the Parliament or of persons who are officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.Subsection (4) was inserted in what became section 11 of the Referendum Act by means of an amendment in the Senate at the time of the passage of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill. The subsection arose out of a concern at the time to establish a statutory prohibition against the government of the day funding partisan involvement in campaigns surrounding a referendum proposal. Specifically, the concern was that a government might support one case only.Clause 4 of the bill is not an attempt on the part of the Government to tip the balance in favour of either side of the debate on the republic.Clause 4 is intended to ensure simply that Commonwealth expenditure on the Government's three-phase programme of public information activities for the 1999 referendum does not result in a technical breach of subsection 11(4) of the Referendum Act.The Government's intention is to give the Australian people who will be required to vote on a republic the best chance possible to understand the issues at stake and the arguments for and against change.The Attorney-General's Department has indicated that subsection 11(4) of the Referendum Act as it stands may prevent public funding for the campaign phase of the information activities. The Department has also said that the subsection arguably prevents Commonwealth expenditure on educational material which may be said to include any argument for or against the proposed law. Many kinds of educational material could conceivably come within the scope of such a prohibition. The class of educational material that may be regarded—in one sense or another—as an argument for or against change is potentially too broad.Clause 4 of the bill would facilitate expenditure by the Commonwealth on public information activities by temporarily over-riding the operation of subsection 11(4) of the Referendum Act.Clause 4 of the bill would over-ride the operation of subsection 11(4) only in relation to expenditure in respect of things done in 1999 in connection with:(a) a referendum on a proposed law for the establishment of a Australian republic; or(b) a referendum on a proposed law to insert a preamble in the Constitution.The reference in clause 4 to a referendum on a proposed law to insert a preamble in the Constitution is necessary in order to ensure that `incidental' references to the preamble proposal cannot of themselves result in a breach of the act.The reference is intended to ensure that expenditure in connection with information activities relating to the republic issue, and particularly in connection with the phase two advertising campaigns, cannot breach the Referendum Act simply because it also incidentally touches on the preamble issue. The Government's commitment is to undertake a public education programme directed to the republic proposal and to fund campaigns on that proposal. That commitment does not extend to the preamble proposal.Clause 4 would have a very limited effect. Indeed, it would not alter the text of the Referendum Act. Clause 4 would operate as a provision of the Referendum Legislation Amendment Act 1999 and cover the 1999 referenda. Otherwise, clause 4 is not intended to affect existing statutory arrangements. It cannot affect later referenda, even if they relate to republic or preamble issues.Other amendments to the Referendum Act, which will apply to the republic referendum and all future referenda will:. provide that where the Minister gives a written notice to the Electoral Commissioner, identifying two or more proposed laws, and referendums on two or more of the proposed laws are to be held on the same day, and the notice is given to the Electoral Commissioner at least 28 days before the issue of the writ; then the ballot-papers for each of the referendums specified in the notice are to be printed on separate pieces of paper. Further, for each of the referendums, the ballot-papers are to be of different colours, to be chosen by the Electoral Commissioner.. allow for a wider distribution of the Yes/No case pamphlets than is currently provided for in the legislation, including publication on the Internet.I commend the bill to the Senate.ASSISTANCE FOR CARERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill gives effect to a number of measures from the 1997-98 and 1998-99 Budgets and the "Staying at Home" package announced on 2 April 1998 that aim to improve assistance to carers of those with a disability and the elderly.As part of its 1997-98 Budget, the Government announced that it would extend carer payment to a new category of people. The new category will be people who are caring for an adult with a level of disability that is not sufficient to qualify their carer for income support. From 1 July 1999, carer payment will be payable to that carer if the adult, because of his or her disability, is unable to look after his or her own child or has a child with a disability for whom he or she is unable to care for because of the child's disability, and, as a result, the carer is also looking after the child. The aim is to provide help for people who are not caring full-time only for the adult with a disability, but are in fact engaged in full-time care because they are required to look after the child as well.In the "Staying at Home" package, the Government reinforced its commitment to carers by announcing that it would introduce a simpler and more consistent system of income supplements for carers. This initiative involves the introduction of a new payment called carer allowance, which will be available to carers from July 1999.Carer allowance brings together two payments—child disability allowance and domiciliary nursing care benefit—to provide a single income supplement for carers of adults and children. The qualification rules for carer allowance will mean that it will be more easily available to carers of adults with disabilities than is presently the case for domiciliary nursing care benefit. Carers will be able to claim carer allowance from any Centrelink office. It is expected that 14,000 carers of adult relatives will qualify for assistance for the first time.The Government announced in the 1998-99 Budget that it will expand the scope of carer payment and carer allowance to increase assistance that is available to carers. Where the person for whom a carer is caring is hospitalised and the carer is involved in the person's treatment plan, the carer will now be able to claim and receive carer allowance. Previously, carers could not claim child disability allowance, domiciliary nursing care benefit or carer payment when the person they were caring for was hospitalised. From 1 July 1999, in cases where the person cared for has a terminal illness or is expected to return home after hospital treatment, the carer will continue to qualify for carer payment or carer allowance for a period of hospitalisation for up to 63 days in a calendar year. The current assessment of an adult's disability for the payment of domiciliary nursing care benefit has been criticised as being subjective and unduly restrictive. As part of its "Staying at Home" package, the Government announced that, from 1 July 1999, it would introduce a simpler and more objective assessment mechanism, the Adult Disability Assessment Tool. It will be much easier for many carers to qualify for carer allowance, particularly those caring for people with intellectual, psychiatric and neurological disabilities. Fewer medical assessments will be needed for recipients with severe and permanent disabilities.The Adult Disability Assessment Tool will also be used to decide qualification for an existing social security payment, carer payment.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of debate on the bills be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills3233r721Billsr7383233Bills received from the House of Representatives.3233Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time.323409:48:003234Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999This bill is the second of two bills which implement the Government's Response to the Industry Commission's Report into the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Industries. This bill is titled the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 which contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.The economic conditions under which Australia's TCF industries have operated in the past twenty years have undergone dramatic changes, particularly in relation to tariff protection.In the 1980s the effective tariff rate for clothing and footwear was 250 per cent; by 1995, the rate for clothing had fallen to 40 per cent.The tariff rate in the year 2000 for clothing will be 25 per cent and 15 per cent for footwear.After a pause in duty reductions from the first of July 2000, the proposed legislation implements a further reduction of TCF tariffs on the first of January 2005.Madam President, the pause will give Australia's TCF industries an opportunity to consolidate and strengthen by investing, restructuring and identifying global business opportunities through governmental incentives contained in the TCF strategic investment programme bill.These stimuli will enhance sustainability and make the TCF industries internationally competitive in a low protection trade environment.This bill provides for tariff levels on clothing and finished textiles to reduce from 25 per cent to 17.5 per cent; for cotton sheeting, woven fabrics carpets and footwear from 15 to 10 per cent, and from 10 to 7.5 per cent for sleeping bags, table linen and footwear parts with effect from 1 January 2005.The bill also terminates on the thirtieth of June 2000 the textiles, clothing and footwear import credit scheme under which import duty concessions are earned on the value of goods exported from Australia.I commend the bill.EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999Madam President, this bill delivers on the government's election commitment to Australian exporters, and particularly small and medium exporters, to continue to support in a very tangible way their efforts to expand into new markets overseas.The bill does this by extending the life of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme for a further two years, to the 2000/2001 grant year.The bill also continues the process of simplification of the EMDG scheme, a process that the government initiated in 1997 with the passage of the streamlined and more carefully targeted Export Market Development Grants Act 1997.Madam President, I can report that this process of simplification has been well received by the exporting community. In the first year of operation of the 1997 act, all grant recipients received a full 100 cents in the dollar of their entitlement, attesting to the accurate matching of the scheme to eligible exporters for that year.Furthermore, over 200 new small and medium exporters entered the scheme because of the lowering of the minimum expenditure threshold from $30,000 to $20,000.In total, 2,933 exporters were assisted by the scheme in 1997/98, and those exporters received an average grant of $52,626.However, as might be expected with a completely new act, usage has revealed areas where some fine-tuning is now required.In addition to extending the scheme for a further two years, the bill therefore introduces twelve amendments of a housekeeping nature that restore or clarify the original intention of the 1997 act, and assist the smooth administration of the scheme. There are no major policy issues associated with these amendments.The amendments:. Ensure that certain exclusions to grants history as specified in the act are applicable to all circumstances associated with a first time applicant;. Rename the "grants entry test";. Ensure that trusts must be "genuinely carrying on business in Australia";. Ensure that trusts have access to "new markets"; . Ensure that the limitation on claiming first class airfares applies to all travellers;. Correct an incorrect reference and some illogical wording;. Ensure that late-lodged applications cannot be received;. Provide that applicants may receive three grants in respect of each "new market"; and. Provide that the three year limit on the life of an "approved body" is also applicable to an "approved body" established under the previous act.The bill also safeguards the effective operation of the scheme by making some administrative matters non-disallowable, and further facilitates the fulfilment of Austrade's charter by improving that organisation's ability to disseminate EMDG data.The EMDG scheme is delivering real benefits to exporters and this bill will further improve it.I commend this bill to honourable senators.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of the bills be adjourned until the first day of the 1999 winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees32353235323509:48:003235McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the Commonwealth privacy legislation, together with submissions and the Hansard record of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I wish to express my joy at being able to present this report to the chamber today. It has been a long time in gestation, the reference being given to the committee in May 1998 and public hearings being held in July and August last year, with an anticipated reporting date in August. However, Madam Acting Deputy President, you would be aware that the sitting pattern was somewhat changed last year with the calling of an early election and that the parliament did not meet again until November last year, when new committees and committee chairs were put in place.The chairman's draft report was given to the committee on 7 December last year, shortly before the Senate adjourned for the Christmas break. There has been what could be seen as a response to the report, even before the report was brought down. The Attorney-General, in a major statement in January this year, brought down a revised version of the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information. I am very pleased that the Attorney did so but, had he done so earlier, perhaps in July last year, it would have saved the committee quite a deal of work. But at least it does prove that the Attorney and the Attorney-General's Department are listening to what the community is saying. We do await the hard copy of what the Attorney said the government is going to do in that statement delivered in January this year.Before I speak briefly on the body of the report, I also pay tribute to the secretariat that assisted the committee in the development of the report. Dr Pauline Moore, as the secretary of the committee, was ably assisted by Mr Jonathan Curtis, Mr Gavin Denton and Ms Alison Carson. I thank them for their assistance and advice in the development of the report. I also have to thank my colleagues, in particular the former deputy chair of the committee who ably assisted me during the inquiry, Senator Abetz, and, of course, a previous member of the committee, Senator George Campbell. I must also thank my friend and colleague the learned Senator Cooney from Victoria, who was a constant source of advice and counsel during the inquiry. He also assisted immeasurably during the construction of the report which is now presented to the Senate.The terms of reference of the inquiry asked the committee to consider measures contained in the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998, which proposed to extend the operation of the Privacy Act 1998 to business performing work outsourced by the Commonwealth, together with existing privacy protection in Australia's private sector, taking into account Australia's international obligations and the need for legislative backing for privacy protection. The report addresses those needs in the private sector, the extent to which the current protection is offered and the effectiveness of a self-regulatory system. Although the 1998 bill is not yet back on the Notice Paper, the inquiry is broader than what was proposed within that legislation.Since the inquiry commenced, the Stockdale bill has been introduced in Victoria, prompting the federal government to change its policy and accept the need for at least some legislative protection of privacy in the private sector. The committee has not considered the developments since December last year. To do so would have meant that we would have restarted the inquiry, and of course we have not yet seen the colour of the content of what the Attorney-General is proposing. He has stated what they are going to do, but what is going to be proposed is not yet public. We await that with bated breath.The international and national debates over privacy protection have resulted in an emergence of an expanding body of law and standards. A privacy protection scheme covering the private sector must include core information protection principles and an enforcement system. These must create enforceable rights and obligations that provide minimum standards of an individual's privacy right. The privacy protection principles should reflect international best practice, such as the European Union Directive on Data Protection. A failure to ensure high standards could damage Australia's trade interests in two ways: by inhibiting the ability of trade partners to exchange information and by limiting the confidence of the Australian public in emerging technologies.The committee concludes that existing protection is inadequate. Australia's existing legal frameworks are partial in their coverage and vary across jurisdictions. Access to remedies and enforcement is uncertain. Inadequacy of federal law is prompting legislative responses at a state and territory level, making a fragmented national approach increasingly likely. Self-regulation by itself does not provide an adequate system for privacy protection. Without an adequate enforcement mechanism, the national principles for the fair handling of privacy information lack force and cannot provide the basis for an effective national privacy scheme.The national principles do not meet the requirements of the European Union Directive on Data Protection. In comparison, they provide a weak and piecemeal approach to the collection and protection of data. The Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 is an inadequate response to the need for privacy legislation. The desire to minimise the application of the bill would have had the effect of increasing the complexity of Australia's privacy laws. This is ironic, considering industry's pleas for simplified, uniform and consistent privacy laws.The committee recommends the creation of uniform national legislation covering both the public and the private sectors. The preferred solution is a coregulatory system based on a model developed by the Attorney-General's Department. This comprises flexible industry codes developed in cooperation with the Privacy Commissioner and backed by a legislative scheme. Responses received to the 1996 discussion paper Privacy Protection in the Private Sector reveal an overwhelming support within industry for the proposed coregulatory model. Minimising the regulatory burden and compliance costs to industry is important. However, costs depend upon the exact nature of the scheme in question. It cannot be assumed that a legislative system will necessarily entail high compliance costs. The coregulatory model adopted in New Zealand has cost very little.There is a wide constitutional basis for the Commonwealth parliament to enact comprehensive privacy legislation, although there may be some doubt as to the complete coverage of such legislation across all areas. However, this problem could be solved by the enactment of uniform model legislation in all jurisdictions by Commonwealth, state and territory governments. I commend the report to the chamber.09:57:003237Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This is a vital report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee in the discussion about what privacy laws we ought to have in this country and, indeed, what we ought to have around the world. I say `around the world' because a lot of the impetus for this report came from the European directive of which Senator McKiernan has spoken. Senator McKiernan chaired this committee and, in his usual able way, has led the committee to make a very significant contribution to the area that we are discussing.The whole issue of privacy is one that is going to trouble us for some time because it goes to the issue of what information should be made available to the public generally and what should not. Of course, in this era of technology it is very hard for people to keep secure to themselves what they might wish to. The answer to this problem of how information is to be controlled might end up being resolved by making information more available. That is a very interesting concept. Instead of trying to shut off the access that other people have to information about ourselves, if we made that information available to everybody on the basis that everybody made information about themselves available to the world, then an interesting situation would arise. That would mean that we would no longer have problems with the concept of commercial-in-confidence, for example. If a company did not want compulsory regulation of privacy matters but left it up to the goodwill of others and information that would tell us how that company was acting became available, then so be it.That sort of approach might indicate that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What I have been talking about might indicate that that phrase is not as easily applied as it might first appear because if that were the case it would mean that these commercial-in-confidence issues and other similar issues would become available to the public. We have instances in this chamber which arise—one arose yesterday—as to what documents should be made available in the Senate. What proper role does the executive have and what proper role does the parliament have in this question of what information should be made available?In the area of policing, what documents should be kept away from the police and what documents should the police be able to preserve when they have them? In matters of national security there are great issues. What information should be made available about Pine Gap and what should not be made available? There is a whole area in which privacy has yet to be discussed, but the fundamental issue is the same: what should we, as a matter of right, be able to keep to ourselves, whether we are a government, a party, a military organisation, a police force or whether we are a company trading in commodities or anything else? That is what this issue goes to. Therefore, it is a very important issue.As we see things, if people find out supposed information about us then the issue arises as to what sort of interpretation they are going to put upon that information. Let me explain further. People say that if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide. But that presumes that what is revealed about us or about our company, our country or our party will be interpreted by others in a fair way. One of the great problems in this area is the interpretation that is given to information that becomes available about anything or anybody. That information is often very badly interpreted. So you get information put out to the public which is incorrect, which is given a twist or a spin, as they say, and then comes back in a very unfair way on the person about whom the information has been made available.I would like to have heard many people in this chamber discuss this document because it is, as I say, a very central issue in our society. It is a matter that affects all of us because there are all sorts of things which we do not want people to know about our own lives—our medical records, for instance. Even in dealings within one political party some people might say, `We will keep those sorts of deals secret.' That does not happen on our side of politics because whatever we do we reveal and it is plain for all to see. But in other places, people do deals which they want to keep secret. It would be a terrible shock to our side to think that that sort of thing happened.The issue of privacy comes in at every level and in all areas. I am glad that Senator McKiernan had the perspicacity to see that it ought to be developed. I should mention the rest of the committee—Senator Payne, who has recently come to this committee and is quite outstanding, Senator Coonan, Senator Hutchins and Senator Stott-Despoja. In closing, I thank the staff in the secretariat who did the work. Senator McKiernan has already thanked them, but I would also like to mention Dr Pauline Moore, Mr Jonathan Curtis, Mr Gavin Denton and Ms Alison Carson.Question resolved in the affirmative.32383238Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—as amended, by leave—proposed: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Technologies, be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate. (2) That the committee consist of 8 senators, 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and 1 to be nominated by an independent senator or a Green senator. (3) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the chair be elected from the government members of the committee. (5) That the deputy chair be elected from the non-government members immediately after the election of the chair. (6) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting. (7) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (8) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit. (9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (10) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) The committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the minutes of evidence and records of the select committees on: Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Telecommunications Technologies; Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies; and Information Technologies. (13) That the committee shall present its final report on any matters referred to it on or before, and cease to exist on, the last day of sitting in the year 2000.10:07:003238Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to make a brief statement. The central problem with this motion is that the proposed committee has no terms of reference. The matter of information technology is a critical one to everybody in our community. The Greens in particular, representing very strongly the interests of young Australians, are concerned to see that information technology is facilitated, not restricted. We are particularly concerned that, if a committee like this is established, it look at such matters as foreign ownership and cross- media ownership, noting the comments by Messrs Packer in the last 24 hours about the convergence of computer and communications technology which, in their view—and this is a revised view—makes the attempt to limit foreign ownership of the media, in the widest sense of that word, obsolete.We are also concerned about equity of access to information technology so that there is equal opportunity for students in Australia's schools, for people in the bush vis-a-vis those in the city and for community groups. Add to that those people who find information technology difficult—older people, people with physical handicaps or impediments and people who are not literate or who do not have English as their first language. I would like to see a committee like this look at positive action to ensure that those Australians who find information technology is outside their reach have it brought within their reach. We see continuing analysis of the penetration of computers into, for example, households in Australia, noting it is probably higher than in almost any other country, and yet 10, 20 or 30 per cent of households in Australia have never seen a computer cross the threshold. So we see there a difficulty for many Australians. I would also like to see an analysis of the impact of information technology on the regulation of commerce, on taxation and on the way in which Australians go about their everyday lives.I note that there is already an Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee. We already have a committee which could handle the work that we presume the government intends for the committee now before the Senate. Why have two committees dealing with information technology? Why not expand the terms of reference of an established committee dealing with information technology? This is confusing, it is unusual. It will, I presume, if we are to be expeditious, require demarcation as to what matters those two committees—the established committee and the one to be established—are going to look at with regard to information technology.Above all, we have to allay the concern there is in the community that this is going to be the anti-porn crusade committee; that at times unspecified in the future we are going to see the issue of censorship at the top of the agenda of this committee looking into information technology. I do not want to see that happen. I do not believe that the most important thing regarding information technology in this country and the problems it presents for the average citizen is the truncation of the liberties of Australians to see, read or hear what they wish to.Obviously, all of us have concerns about the excesses which can be engaged in here; concerns which are going to be a huge problem not just for people in this country but for people right around the world because, as we all know, the control of information technology does not start or finish at the borders of this or any other country. The regulation of what can be seen or heard by Australians needs to be constantly looked at. But if this committee is being designed—and there is every appearance that it is being designed—to further the interests of Senator Harradine and members of the government in cracking down on what Australians can see or read about, then that is a matter of great concern. If that is the case, let it be said. Let us be open and straight about it now. I reiterate: there are hugely important matters to do with information technology which the Senate should be looking at. They can be looked at by an established committee. Why create another one and, in particular, why bring another one with no terms of reference before the Senate for consideration?What is going on here? Why has the government suddenly, at this time, brought this committee up for consideration by the Senate with no terms of reference? I suggest it is to foster the interests of Senator Harradine. I suggest it is to have available a means of looking at material on the Internet which Senator Harradine is concerned about. I note that this matter is up for consideration, whereas other matters that Senator Harradine has not had time to deal with are put off until next week. I might be wrong about this, but let us have a debate about it. There is, I can tell you, a very wide concern out in the community that we are entering a new age of censorship, that we are entering a new age of government interference in the liberties of Australians—time-honoured and time-held liberties. If that is the case, let us call a spade a spade. Let the government tell this Senate what it is up to.In the absence of proper terms of reference, the government is simply fostering the concern there is in the community that agenda number one here is to facilitate Senator Harradine's concern for censorship, while at the same time the government facilitates its concern to get through the sale of more of Telstra, to get through its GST legislation, to get through its anti-environmental laws, to get through its anti-forest protection laws and so on. I am not going to support the appointment of a committee that has no terms of reference. The two things should be here together. We should have the agenda on the table. It is not on the table and, until it is on the table, I will be opposing it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Will you run for membership if it gets set up without the terms of reference?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am coming right to that, Senator Campbell. Yes, I will be standing for this committee if it is set up with or without terms of reference, for the very reasons I have just expounded.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I helped write the terms of reference, Bob. This is the old committee. It is the old terms of references. That is my understanding, but you could seek clarification.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Stott Despoja says it is the old terms of reference which she helped write. The question goes back, `Well, is it?' And the question is, Senator Stott Despoja: why has this matter come before the Senate right now? And you will be able to answer that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Why did the Dee Margetts one come before the Senate last week? Is there some magic about it? Is there a conspiracy?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You can speak for yourself. I will answer your question, Senator Campbell. Senator Campbell has asked whether I will stand for this committee whether or not it has terms of reference. He is not sure then what the terms of reference are, Senator Stott Despoja. He does not know that these are the terms of reference we are going to end up with here. I would like to hear that confirmed. If it is confirmed, then I will rest easier with it. The Greens do have an enormous interest in information technology and its ramifications for the Australian community. So of course I would be interested in seeing whatever evidence comes before a committee like this and in helping to evaluate that evidence in the interests of the Australian community.10:17:003240Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Unlike Senator Brown's, my contribution will not go to the issue of the motivations of the government for establishing the committee. But I want to refer to some issues which I believe are issues of substance and ought to be taken seriously by the Senate. We have heard Senator Brown's contribution in relation to the committee not having terms of reference. This refers to paragraph (1) of the motion before us, which states:That a Select Committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Technologies, be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate.We do not really know at this stage what reference this committee may receive from the Senate. In the absence of, if you like to use the terminology, formal terms of reference, I think there are some issues of concern that we need to give consideration to. I am concerned that in this situation of establishing a committee without a specific job to do—in other words, establishing a committee with nothing to inquire into formally—Senator Harradine interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I hear from you, Senator Harradine. If you just listen to what I am saying, I am just putting what I think is the technical issue. I am not going to motivations here, as I have indicated.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Neither am I.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—So let me just tell you what I think the problem is. We are establishing a committee that does not have at this stage—of course it might have soon—matters to report into. I am concerned that in this circumstance we might determine the membership and even establish the chair of the committee—the chair may even be being paid a salary of office—but we might not actually have any formal work for the committee to undertake. I think that is a significant issue for the Senate and we need to be careful about it. Paragraph (1) of this motion refers to appointing a committee `to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate'. And the technical issue is: no matters at this stage have been referred to it by the Senate. I do not know whether they will be or not.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—They have been, and this is the report.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Where is that in the motion, Brian? I am listening to the interjection from Senator Harradine, because I am interested in what he says on this. I have carefully read the motion, all 12 paragraphs of the motion before us, and the 13th, which the Manager of Government Business has by leave incorporated in the motion. That is something that is supported by the opposition, because in fact it was the opposition's idea. It was the opposition that went to the government and said, `Well, you now have a proposition before the Senate involving the establishment of a select committee, but there is no report back date.' So that was a matter of concern, as I am sure all senators would appreciate. At the initiative of the opposition we now have incorporated in the motion—in my view, properly—a proposition that `the committee shall present its final report on any matters referred to it on or before . . . the last day of sitting in the year 2000.'That was another weakness in the motion before us, and I think that has been rectified. We do not have a situation at the moment where there is anything formal for the committee to inquire into. There is no way that you can read the now 13-part motion and suggest that that is not the case. We have a situation at the moment where the motion before us is far more appropriate for a standing committee than for a select committee. That is a pretty fair and objective analysis of the situation that we have.I have to say to the Senate that it is not the opposition's intention to oppose this motion, but it is the opposition's intention to try and ensure that the Senate acts properly in relation to the establishment of select committees. I point out—and I do not know if others in the Senate have given any consideration to this fact—that we have a matter before the chair proposing an eight-person select committee and that two of the members of the select committee will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. In other words, two out of eight of the committee—one-quarter of the committee—will be Labor senators.We could mount a persuasive case—a very persuasive case indeed—to argue for greater representation. I am not going to do that. I am not going to propose an amendment, but I point out to the Senate yet another flaw. In other words, if on the basis of representation in the Senate you are entitled to three out of eight committee members, perhaps someone should argue why on this particular occasion the government has not taken account of that issue.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It's another gerrymander.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is a gerrymander. But I will leave that and go on to another point. This is now the third select committee to be proposed in this parliament. We have a select committee on the new tax system, a select committee on the socioeconomic consequences of the national competition policy and now this proposal before us for a select committee on information technologies. Again, the point needs to be made that the select committee on the new tax system was an initiative of the Australian Democrats; the select committee on the socioeconomic consequences of national competition policy was the initiative of Senator Margetts, representing the Western Australian Greens. Now we have a select committee on information technologies that is the initiative of the government.I make the point at this stage that the opposition has not been successful in propos ing the establishment of a select committee, and I hope that the Senate shows equal generosity when the opposition does bring forward a proposition for the establishment of such a committee. We think there is certainly an entitlement as far as the opposition is concerned in this regard.So there are some flaws of a technical nature in the motion as it currently stands, which make this quite an unusual motion to be placed before the Senate, and that is really the nature of the concerns that the opposition has with the motion. I am not going to the issues that Senator Brown has gone to in relation to what he believes might be debated, dealt with and referred to this select committee. I do not know what those issues are going to be. If important matters, such as some of those that he was referring to, do come before the select committee, obviously they will be treated as serious ones by the opposition, because we do believe that there are very important public policy implications in the sorts of issues that Senator Brown and others might raise. But at this time I am not in a position—and I do not think too many senators are in a position—to second-guess what those issues might be, and that is a flaw in the motion that is before the Senate at this time.Regardless of that, these are important issues for the government to address; and I hope it does. We do not want to see a chair of a select committee being paid when the committee actually has no work to do. I do not think any senator would want to see that occur. It is important, if we are to have a select committee, that its actually has something to inquire into. I do not think that is unreasonable. There are serious flaws in the motion at the moment. As I have indicated, the motion before us is more in the nature of a motion relating to a standing committee. Perhaps these things will be addressed quickly; I assume that they will be. I hope that this contribution is accepted in the spirit in which it is given, because there is no doubt that we are setting a precedent here—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—It has always got to be constructive.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Indeed; I could not agree more with the Manager of Government Business in the Senate in that regard, and let the record stand. Regardless of these concerns, which I hope will be addressed by the government in very short order, the opposition will support the motion.10:29:003242Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have listened carefully to what Senator Faulkner has said. I have had another look at the motion itself. Arguably, it may be setting up a shell but—as I and others who have been following this for some considerable time understood it—I thought that this was a re-establishment of the previous committee to continue to conduct its—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It does not say that here.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The government should take note of what you have said.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It is a sort of a wholesome osmosis problem.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator Brown talked through enormous ignorance when he got up. He was saying that there is nothing for this committee to do. Here is the draft chairman's report ready for us to look at on day one.Senator Brown interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You are ignorant—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President. He should not get up and try and mislead the Senate.Senator Brown interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Nobody is misled by you. This is the hard work that has been done. It is about evaluating the appropriateness, effectiveness and privacy implications of the existing self-regulatory framework in relation to the information and communications industry, in particular the adequacy of the complaints regime. Is that not something that Senator Brown should be interested in? Of course it is. But no, we have not been doing anything on this committee! This matter of privacy—and consumer protection—is a very important matter indeed, particularly in this rapidly developing field.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am not arguing that it is not important.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I know you are not. I am referring to Senator Brown's conspiracy theories. Every time he gets up he is on a conspiracy theory. Let us put that to bed. To evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and privacy implications—Senator Brown interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—You are not interested in that, Senator Brown. You did not even know what we had been doing on this hardworking committee. This matter was referred to us and there were advertisements in January 1998. The committee received a large number of submissions: 47 from organisations and individuals. We had public hearings in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, again in Sydney and Adelaide, and further meetings in Canberra and in Sydney, hearing from these people. They gave us their evidence. We spent time sifting through the evidence. The chairperson of the committee was Senator Ferris. The draft chairperson's report was ready and something happened—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—When was it ready?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The election happened.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It was six months ago.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—When was the election?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It was 3 October.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—This has got on it `Confidential Draft Chair's Report 8 October'. I think we met before then and did some work on it. I have certainly been through it—on the privacy area, which is very important. We want to try and get this before the chamber and logged into the chamber as soon as possible. You are going to ask: what has happened between the election and now? The message that we got very clearly—and that I was getting very clearly from your side—was that there were too many committees. Is that not so?Senator Robert Ray interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The question was put to me when Senator Margetts's committee was being proposed as well.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You are getting the message from both sides. I can tell you the message that side gave you.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Perhaps they will. But the message that we and Senator Ferris were getting was that you were saying there were too many committees and this was on the backburner—after all the important work that we did on the area of privacy.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—No-one told us you had a report ready to go.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—We do. All the good work was done. The people who gave their evidence are wondering what the heck is going on and where the report is. Every honourable senator will realise that. That scotches the conspiracy theory put forward by Senator Brown—that this committee has been established for me. For crying out loud, I need this committee like a hole in the head at this particular time. But this is a rapidly developing field. You have to have a fairly open remit because it is a rapidly developing field. We have to have a look at the questions of ownership and of consumer protection and at a number of other issues. I give notice to the government, as well as to everybody else, that I think, to clear the air, the proposals that have been put forward by Senator Alston recently ought to be referred to let people have the chance to give open expression to their views. Let them do that. That would be well and truly in the open. Why not do that? I put it to the government and to everybody else around the place: would that not be something that would be useful for this particular committee to do? I make that serious suggestion.I have nothing more to add except to go to Senator Faulkner's point. Having another look at it, I think he may in fact have a point. I should imagine a simple suggestion—and I look to the clerks to advise on the particular matter, but I would certainly like to see this—is that the committee be re-established as quickly as possible to get on with its job so as to be able to report.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are going to pay a chairman to do nothing, Brian.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The chair has not been doing nothing, I can assure you.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, the chair's not been appointed yet.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, the previous chair, Senator Ferris, has been working vigorously.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I'm not arguing about that. I'm talking about the new chair. You wouldn't want to appoint a chair and pay them to do nothing.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, let us do something about it now. I know that Senator Ferris and Senator Quirke, the deputy chair, put a lot of work into this. I do not know whether the clerks can give some advice as to what might be necessary to ensure that we can get on with the job of completing this particular report on privacy. And I give fair warning to everybody that, if people think that things have been done behind closed doors, all right, let us have it out in the open. Let us see what merit or otherwise there is in the government's propositions in respect of the net.10:39:003244Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Harradine has referred to a reluctance by the opposition with regard to the number of committees, and in that he is correct. I think in the last count of committees, the total we got to was 47. Our concern is not to stop avenues of exploration in this chamber but merely that, if you create so many committees that senators cannot give them their proper and full attention, they never reflect the proper views of senators. You end up devolving the writing of reports to consultants and committee secretaries and the involvement of senators becomes less and less.We are also being very conscious of the funding decision made by the Department of Finance and Administration and the Senate to put into the base funding of the Senate funding for select committees. You might remember, Senator Harradine, that we had seven select committees in 1995 and that was putting enormous pressure on the resources of this particular chamber. I think that mostly through the drive of the Labor members on the staffing appropriation committee, but certainly assisted by the President, we were able to come up with a formula with DOFA that put funding into our base funding. We have always been careful not to go beyond that and put pressure on other areas of Senate funding.Therefore we take the view that select committees must have a specific purpose to serve. They are not there just as a convenient substitute for reference committees because someone wants to change the composition of the numbers or get more publicity. We believe most of these references—I stress `most'—should go to the references committees, but there are exceptions. Some specific issues are better served by select committees—and the areas that are dealt with by Senator Ferris's committee may well fall within that category—but we have been careful and cautious about just how may select committees we set up. One of the easiest political stunts in the world, when you are under a bit of political pressure over a specific issue, is to go back to the particular constituency and say, `I've got it fixed. I'm going to move for the establishment of a select committee.' I would suggest that one or two of the committees that existed in the eighties had their genesis in that.Senator Faulkner has made the valid point that when you are considering setting up select committees, who around the chamber has a fair chop at it. We know that this committee is being set up by the government at the government's initiative, and I think the government is entitled to a select committee every now and then. We know that the GST committee was set up by the Democrats and we know that the competition policy one was set up by the Greens. That just leaves one set of dancers on the floor without a chair—the Australian Labor Party. So we just forewarn people and humbly submit that we would expect—unless it is totally outrageous—that if we come up with a reasonable suggestion for a select committee, maybe when the GST committee has finished its work, we would get some consideration, constituting more than a third of the Senate.In this case, this committee is being set up with a government chair, and I have to say I think that is reasonable. It is not a matter we would criticise because in terms of select committees there has been a reasonable rotation between government and opposition of select committees, so we have no objection to the government chairing this committee. We have some puzzlement as to why we were allocated two out of eight, rather than three out of eight. That is not usual in these procedures, but we will put two such powerful intellects on this committee that we will easily match the four government ones.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Who?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We have not made that decision yet, Senator Ferris. We are not quite sure who will serve on it; nevertheless, we are quite sure two Labor people can match four coalition people.I did raise the question: why is this committee being set up now and not immediately after the election? I must say I have not been encouraging people to set up this committee in the view of limiting things. Frankly, I had no idea until Senator Harradine got to his feet today that he had a report ready to go—which I suppose is a testament to the fact that Labor members of the committee do not discuss the internal workings of the committee with us and that they have kept their confidence about it. But I did not know that. Clearly, had I known, Senator Harradine, that you had a report ready to go, I would have encouraged the setting up of this committee again in November at least to transact that business and to complete it. I did not know that and therefore that was one of the reasons I have not been enthused about setting the committee up.When it comes to the question of terms of reference, this is the first time a select committee has ever been moved without terms of reference. That was the nub of our problems with it. This is easily resolved. I encourage Senator Harradine or Senator Ferris to go to the clerks at some stage this morning and develop a reference to finish this last reference. We as the opposition will give you leave not to give a notice of motion but to move an immediate reference to the committee so you can proceed and finish that work. So you can have the reference today, as far as we are concerned, if you can get the terms ready that relate to that previous report.Senator Faulkner raised the point that that would obviate this problem of having a chair elected and being paid to do nothing. The last time that came up was when Senator Harradine indicated that I was paid to do nothing. Funnily enough, I was the only one to agree with him—he thought he had hurt my feelings—because at that stage the Privileges Committee had no work. But anyone looking at the number of reports that were brought into the chamber subsequently would realise that, if it had been my intention to take a chair with no work, I was amply punished by this chamber with the many references they sent to the committee.I agree with the moving by Senator Campbell of a reporting date; every select committee should have a reporting date. But it really is putting the cart before the horse. What we should do is move the next reference to this committee—obviously there is going to be one—and then move a reporting date, not put in a reporting date before we know what the next reference is.Senator Harradine has suggested that a good reference would be the question of Internet porn—to use the abbreviated term. That is an area that needs examination, but I have to say that it needs an examination when people's views in this chamber are not grossly distorted by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. We must enter into it with a reasonable reference, not with the sort of biased views he put in an answer to a question this week when, by inference, he said that the Labor Party did not care about porn on the Internet. That is a total distortion of the Labor Party view that there are immense technical difficulties. The Senator Alstons of this world, for cheap political points, then make the jump—because you have said there are technical difficulties—that in some way you are soft on this issue or that you encourage Internet porn. Nothing could be further from the truth about the Labor Party's position. So if we do have a reference on this particular matter, let it be an objective reference and not a polluted one from the minister for communications in this government.I have seen coalition members in this chamber—Senator Alston and Senator Parer in particular—absolutely race to put down the private conversations you might have during a division or in the lobby here. They have done it twice to me—both times distorting my view. Wouldn't I love to reveal in this chamber some of the discussions between the coalition and the Labor Party in the last three months about this committee, whether it should exist and what its reporting date should be. Senator Campbell would be highly embarrassed if I did, but I am not going to lower myself to that level. But, clearly, coalition senators have told Senator Harradine only part of the story and omitted all the other parts.What we have come to here is an improved motion with a reporting date—that is the first improvement. The second improvement we could make is to develop terms of reference today that at least go as far as resolving the previous matters under consideration by the committee. We in the Labor Party will not use any device in the chamber to prevent that reference being made today. As such, you have then set up a select committee and you have the terms of reference. We will then await future terms of reference to this select committee, which we hope will actually try to come to grips with and solve what is going to be an increasing problem, and not make political brownie points or adopt the distorted, knock down the straw man approach of Senator Alston.The Labor Party when in government was never censorship free. We did have ratings for films and they were enforceable because of the very nature of cinemas. We then had to struggle with videos because of their wider accessibility to under-age people. But the Internet is a far more worrying area in terms of access. I do not believe in unfettered access but equally I do not believe in censoring generally—unless it has implications for other people—what adults view.Trying to draw those distinctions is going to be very difficult, especially when you are involved in technology that a seven-year-old knows a lot more about than I do, and always will. I do not know about other people in this chamber, but when I want my video recorder programmed it is the niece and nephew who do it, not me. That is the difficulty. That is why this is a unique area. It is not a classic conservative versus liberal view on Internet porn; it is not that, it is a completely different issue. I do not want Senator Alston trying to melt it down to that simplistic level and then abusing people around the edges of it like he did the other day.The opposition will not oppose this motion. We hope that with a bit of goodwill we can knock it into shape, get it through and get on with the next item of government business as quickly as possible.10:50:003246Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the re-establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. People have identified the problems with the motion before us. I was going to suggest an amendment along the lines that Senator Ray has foreshadowed, but I understand that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has undertaken to come up with a form of words. My suggested amendment would have been to section (1) of that motion and would basically add on `in addition the committee shall look at the receipt and consideration of outstanding reports'—reports from the former committee—as well as the two relevant terms of reference from the committee in its former life, and they are:(b) evaluate the development of self-regulatory codes in the information industries; and,(c) monitor the personal, social and economic impact of continuing technological change created by industries and services utilising information technologies.I understand the minister has a more succinct form of words in relation to those terms of reference that will solve the problem before us today.Certainly the Democrats concede that there has been a process difficulty today—the government has come before us with the motion to continue the work of this committee but has failed to highlight the specific nature of that work, hence the concerns in the chamber that that could lend itself to a committee with no terms of reference, a paid chair with no work to do and the opportunity to broaden those terms of reference or to deal with matters that may not be directly relevant or appropriate.Senator Ray is correct, as was Senator Harradine: there is an outstanding report from this committee. One of the matters discussed, certainly in the Democrats party room, was whether or not this committee should be continued for the very reason that there was an outstanding report. I certainly informed my colleagues of that fact, without necessarily explaining to them in any particular detail or specificity the nature of the report or what the evidence before us was; nor did I even refer to the chair's draft. So I find it a bit extraordinary that other members or parties in this place were unaware that a committee report was in the process of being finalised.One of the final reports presented to the last parliament by the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies at that time, Senator Ferris, was on the need for the committee in the 39th parliament. The recommendation from the chair on behalf of the committee was the re-establishment of the Senate select committee in this parliament. That was a fairly basic recommendation. Among the reasons given for that—and I think there were something like 10 points—was for the committee to monitor and complete outstanding reports.The Democrats support in principle the notion of a separate committee that deals with information technology issues, and those issues alone. I take on board comments from Senator Brown that indeed there is currently a Senate committee that is examining information technologies as one component of its work. However, the Democrats believe that a committee on IT on its own is appropriate. That is why in August 1997, when we had this debate the last time, we were very keen to see terms of reference that specifically highlighted these emerging technologies and their impact on society, our economy, our education system, et cetera.I and my party had direct involvement in the terms of reference that were finalised for that committee. They are not exactly what we wanted; obviously the finished version was a compromise. Nevertheless, we still maintain that these issues are not being examined in the appropriate level of detail by the Senate or indeed by this federal parliament. So we will continue to push for information technology issues to be considered higher on the agenda.People have mentioned possible references and possible areas of ongoing or new work for this committee. I will not get into the debate about censorship or civil liberties; my views are already on record both in the form of this committee's work and that of the former committee—that is, the community standards committee on utilisation of technologies. My concerns are very much on record in relation to issues of censorship.Of course members of this committee or members of this chamber are not always going to agree with the terms of reference or some of the areas under discussion. The chair, Senator Ferris, will acknowledge that I have written to her on occasion or spoken to her about some of my concerns with the work pursued by the committee, not for some of the reasons that may have been suggested here today but for very different reasons. The last area that the committee was examining, on self-regulation in relation to privacy, was something I was concerned we were duplicating in terms of the work of another committee, namely the Legal and Constitutional Committee of the Senate.I also suspect that, on occasions, we have missed the correct definition of information technologies in this place. For the purposes of that committee, which I note is still outstanding, we defined information technology as being the media. So we were looking at privacy in relation to the media. It was not a decision that I necessarily strongly supported. That is not to say that it was not an important committee inquiry, but again we have to be very wary that this committee does not lose the opportunity to address issues directly related to information technology.I have put on record before, and will again in the debate this morning, some of the areas that the Democrats believe this committee should be looking into. Certainly the terms of reference give us the scope to examine areas when it comes to self-regulation, bearing in mind that is one of the suggested terms of reference. Those areas include the detriments of self-regulation and how governments should undertake development of regulation or self-regulation in these industries. In terms of encryption, the areas include the need for uniform standards, the impacts of encryption on consumer confidence, international encryption standards and the benefits of encryption for the development of future technologies, for example the online transmission of sound recordings.The international electronic community is another area that we have not begun to even touch on in the context of this committee. What is it? How do we define it and understand what is the electronic economy? What are Australia's various roles in this economy? What are the opportunities for Australia to increase its role in the beneficial aspects of this economy and the educational, employment and entertainment aspects of this economy? Is the information society being dominated? That is a fairly obvious question. How can this domination be addressed to ensure Australian culture is sustained, developed and promoted? What measures should Australia adopt to ensure Australia's participation in the international information society?Then there is another aspect that we must ensure is not lacking not only in our interpretation of the terms of reference but also in the committee reports and inquiries that we pursue. I am referring to the issue of equity and justice, something that Senator Brown touched upon. That involves access to the information society for Australians, the relative justice for different sectors of the Australian community, the role of government in fostering technology equity and justice, barriers in the information society to access equity and justice, and the role of education in the information society.A key component of this whole debate must be an examination of our intellectual property laws. That would involve evaluating recent decisions that perhaps identified flaws or outstanding problems in our IP laws, the role of international agreements in Australia's intellectual property laws, the adequacy of existing IP laws in Australia and Australia's international interests. It would also involve looking at the adverse impacts of the introduction of new technology into our community, for example restructuring work, the casualisation of the work force, reinventive competitiveness and redefining work, as well as an examination of information poverty.So clearly there are broader issues for debate in the context of this committee, and the terms of reference that operated last time do allow for this broader debate. Certainly the Democrats more than anyone want to see this committee not hijacked in a way that focuses on issues that are not directly relevant to IT issues. That is the single qualifying factor we have about supporting this IT committee and its future, that is, that it is not hijacked by interests that are in some way unrelated to information technologies, the information economy and information society.We are happy with the terms of reference that currently exist. We support this committee's re-establishment on the grounds that they are the terms of reference that will be ongoing. If Senator Campbell is not moving his motion, I will seek leave to move my amendment, but I suspect that the minister's will suffice at this stage. We were concerned with one of the areas of examination in the last committee and, as I say, the Democrats' concerns are on record. But I acknowledge the will of the committee, supported by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and Senator Harradine.The Democrats just feel that we have perhaps lost a vital opportunity to actually examine IT issues and not issues that were currently under examination by, say, another committee or not necessarily directly related to the IT industry. We are just hoping that this committee will embark upon some of those more adventurous and interesting areas of information technology, like e-commerce, vilification and defamation laws and intellectual property, as they relate to IT. It is with this thought in mind that we support the re-establishment of this committee. It is on the proviso that Senator Campbell moves an amendment that takes into account the terms of reference from the last committee.11:02:003249Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—On the basis of information that has come before us, because of the arguments that had been raised by Senator Faulkner and Senator Harradine here, I think it is appropriate that we now adjourn this debate until a later hour this day. I so move, and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees32493249324911:03:003249Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I seek the indulgence of the Senate. A mistake of my own making was made on this order of the day. I thought Senator Cooney was in fact going to move that he have leave to continue his remarks, and when he did not do so I did not get back to my seat quickly enough to ask for that motion to be adjourned rather than be dealt with immediately. Therefore, Mr Acting Deputy President, with your leave and that of the Senate, I seek to have the item recommitted and adjourned.Debate adjourned.Bills3249r6553249Consideration resumed from 24 March.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . We are now up to Senator Evans with opposition request No. 1 on sheet 1280. We have previously agreed to opposition amendment No. 5.11:05:003249Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Page 14 (after line 28), after Schedule 1, insert:Schedule 1A—Amendment of the Health Insurance Act 1973 relating to the Medicare rebate for certain procedures rendered in approved procedures facilities1 Subsection 10(2) Omit "A benefit", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), a benefit".2 After subsection 10(2) Insert: (2A) Subject to subsection (3) and section 14, the level of benefit that is payable in respect of the performance, in an approved procedures facility, of an out-of-hospital procedure determined by the Minister under subsection 73BA(2C) of the National Health Act 1953 is an amount at least equal to the sum of 85% of the Schedule fee and the facility benefit determined by the Minister under that subsection in respect of that service.This opposition request seeks to insert a new schedule 1A to provide for the Medicare rebate to apply for these approved facilities. The creation of the new class of approved facilities has been done in a way that benefits only privately insured patients. Public patients sent by hospitals to an approved facility would incur a potentially large gap payment. However, the justification is that the procedures and approved facilities are more economic because the overheads for office based procedures are much less than doing the same thing at a hospital. If this is true, the benefit should be equally great for the public system as for the private. Thus, if procedures are relocated from a public hospital to an approved facility, there should be savings to the public purse because the facilities fee is much lower than the cost of a public hospital stay.To solve this problem, it is proposed that a Medicare rebate be required for any procedure for which there is a facilities fee set which can be covered by private health insurance. The government's argument, as I understand it, is that this would amount to a cost shifting, as the states would save on hospital spending and increase costs to Medicare. However, if there is a long-term trend towards approved facilities, the imbalance could be corrected in the next hospital funding agreement. To not offer this option would exclude public patients and impose large gap payments for them to use what would be essentially private facilities.This is obviously a request to the House of Representatives, but the opposition thinks it is an important addition to the policy contained in this bill because it provides that the measures that the government thinks are beneficial in the private sector ought to apply equally to the public sector and that, if we are talking about the development of a trend and an advance in the way we handle procedures, it ought to be equally true for the public system. The opposition thinks this request should be supported because it is an important part of adding balance to the government's proposal, and that the measures contained in the bill regarding approved facilities should also apply in the public sector.11:08:003250Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Effectively, if we do not support this amendment we will generally see only private patients using these new facilities. Those who are public patients will be staying in hospitals—continuing, I presume, to use day surgery facilities as they have made those choices—but I think it is most unfair that the minister should again look at the whole issue of cost shifting and blame it back on federal-state relations, saying, `We have to do this because the states might push some more people out of the hospital system.' It is an unfortunate fact that in this country we have a major problem with the way our health system is structured and funded and that there is so much buck-passing and cost-shifting between state and federal governments, but I do not think we can let it get in the way of this.If necessary, in the future there may need to be some renegotiation between state and federal governments if these new facilities are so overwhelmingly successful that there is a financial cost to the Commonwealth because the states are pushing people out of hospitals, but let us do the right thing in the first place and make sure that public and private patients get fair treatment, and then if we need to get back into the state and federal battles we can do that at a later time. The Democrats will be supporting this amendment.11:09:003250Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 maintains the 75 per cent coverage for public patients receiving procedures out of hospital that they would normally receive in hospital, and this is in contrast with the normal situation where patients attending a general practitioner are reimbursed 85 per cent of the MBS for medical costs. This does concern me considerably. I know the government's argument is that raising the MBS to 85 per cent will only encourage state governments to push some hospital procedures into approved facilities that the Commonwealth, rather than the state, pays for—that sort of cost shifting. The parliament should be concerned about that, too, if there will be no net increase in the amount of money that will go to health in this country.I would certainly like to hear the government's response to this issue. It seems to me that raising the MBS to 85 per cent further increases the Commonwealth's expenditure on private health services without necessarily adding any substantial funding. I can understand the point that the government makes on this but, as Senator Lees just said, we do get into this bind so frequently in this overlapping area of state and Commonwealth responsibilities. I must say that I am concerned that leaving the Medicare Benefits Schedule at 75 per cent may set a precedent for other areas of out-of-hospital care to be reduced to 75 per cent from the current 85 per cent.I would like to get some guarantee from the government that the 75 per cent rebate will apply only to certain procedures, and that the Commonwealth will guarantee that it will not apply more broadly in the future. In other words, are we really setting a precedent? I ask the government, through the parliamentary secretary, to give some guarantees and assurances on that particular issue.11:13:003251Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—In order to understand what the government is trying to achieve in relation to approved procedures facilities, it is important to understand the current situation. Currently, when a person is admitted as a private patient to a hospital or day hospital, the Commonwealth, through Medicare, pays 75 per cent of the Medicare Benefits Schedule fee. However, if the patient is insured, any accommodation fees charged by the hospital are the responsibility of the fund. Where a patient is not insured, accommodation charges are the patient's responsibility. Thus, as the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 currently stands, because the services that will be provided in an approved procedures facility are only those services that would have been provided in a hospital or day hospital, the government has maintained the level of Medicare rebate at 75 per cent of the Medicare Benefits Schedule fee.However, in recognition of the costs required to establish and run an approved procedures facility—and such costs could broadly be equated with the overheads of a hospital or a day hospital—the government will allow funds to pay a facility benefit to doctors in recognition of such costs. Furthermore, under the Australian health care agreements, state governments are already able to provide treatment outside of a hospital in a doctor's rooms. Given the additional funding that has been provided under these agreements to the states by the Commonwealth, there is every reason to think that many public patients will have access to similar services in the public sector.Thus, in this context, it is apparent that the opposition's proposed amendment is misguided in two ways. Firstly, the opposition amendment misses the key point on the approved procedures facility provisions. The procedures undertaken in approved procedures facilities are those that would otherwise have taken place in a hospital or day hospital facility. As such, the rebate a patient would have expected to receive in a hospital or a day hospital facility is 75 per cent—exactly what they will receive in an approved procedures facility. Furthermore, by increasing the Medicare rebate to 85 per cent of the schedule fee for such services, one could speculate that there is an increased incentive for states and territories to cost shift some services that would otherwise have been provided in the public sector to the Commonwealth via Medicare.Secondly, the opposition appears to be insisting that the Commonwealth pay a minimum facility benefit, determined by the minister under these provisions. This would be a radical departure from the status quo. In effect, the opposition is asking the Commonwealth to pay a private patients accommodation charge, and the government strongly opposes any such move. For these reasons, the government is unwilling to support the amendment moved by the opposition.Senator Harradine raises an important question with regard to precedent and whether or not this is intended in any way to create a further precedent in that area. I can certainly advise Senator Harradine that there is no intention to create a precedent by this legislation.11:16:003251Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for that information, but there is something further that I want to clarify. If the principle upon which the government is operating is that it does not wish to see a different procedure covered in a different way, depending on whether it is in a hospital or a non-hospital facility, can you clarify what the rebate is for a doctor's consultation in a hospital while a person is undergoing some hospital procedures compared with a consultation in a doctor's surgery? Is it the same?11:17:003251Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that the rebate is 75 per cent, under a change that was previously mooted by the Labor Party.11:17:003251Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—So that means there are already differential rebates, depending on whether you are in a hospital or in a doctor's surgery. So if the government is arguing that it wants to maintain a principle that the location of the service should not make a difference, I guess it has already disproved its own argument that there are already differential rebates—whether or not it was done by Labor or anyone else—depending on whether that consultation occurs in a hospital when a person is undergoing some treatment or in a doctor's surgery.11:18:003252Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The principle is that the rebate should maintain the parity, but I would confirm the situation as outlined by Senator Margetts.11:18:003252Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I want to try to concentrate on the perspective of the patient. What we have here is a government argument that the provision of approved facilities will be helpful in providing more efficient and cost-effective health care by taking some procedures which currently occur in hospitals and day hospitals out of that environment and doing them, effectively, in doctor's surgeries, in what are called approved procedures facilities.What we are arguing about here is how one attempts to provide equal treatment for people. The government has concentrated its efforts on those with private health insurance—the 30 per cent, or maybe less now, who are in private health insurance. The Labor opposition is saying that, if this is good policy, it is good policy for everybody, not just the 30 per cent who have private health insurance. What we are seeking to achieve by this request is to make the government address what it says is good policy to those in public health as well.The government's proposition, as I understand it, means that if a person chooses to go—for reasons of convenience, trust in their local GP or, perhaps, quicker service rather than waiting to get into a day or public hospital—to the doctor's surgery, the approved procedures facility, and they are a private patient, they will be insured and the 75 per cent treatment will apply. But the public patient, in accessing this alternative, will be faced with the cost of the 25 per cent left over from the Medicare subsidy. They will be paying the full facilities fee and they will be paying any gap in the doctor's fee that exists above the schedule fee. So it will be a very expensive proposition for those persons.If we are saying that it is good public policy for us to encourage people to use these approved procedures facilities, surely it is good public policy for the 70 per cent of Australians who are not in private health insurance. What we are seeking to do is to say that if these approved facilities offer some cost benefits, surely we must seek to protect the interests of the public patients as well by making those benefits at least relatively accessible to them. We believe that by this procedure we will make them relatively accessible. They will still have a gap payment to make; it will still not be available to all Australians because the cost will prevent that, but it seems reasonable that we provide this level of support to those who seek to use approved facilities but who do not enjoy private health insurance.I think it is a question of providing a proper balance between the needs of those with private health insurance and the 70 per cent of Australians who do not. As I say, if it is good public policy to have this system of approved facilities, and to have these procedures taken out of hospitals and moved into this arena, surely it is good for those without private health insurance as well. So we think it is an important question of balance, and we think the request ought to be supported.11:22:003252Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have listened, and I am still listening, to what the government is saying on this. I realise that these are complex issues and, if anything, it basically just proves what we have been saying, and what many people during the various inquiries have been saying: that making these kinds of changes on a piecemeal basis is really very difficult. We may or may not make the right decision in terms of total health outcomes here, but it seems to me that we should be doing this in the context of having had a proper inquiry into health funding—into what is the most effective way of providing health services and getting our community as healthy as possible within the budget that we have.We really have not done that. We are moving further along, if you like, a policy position—let's call it the `Richo position'—of concentrating on benefiting or encouraging private health funding, and not necessarily looking at it in the context of the overall benefits. I am in two minds about this issue—it is a very difficult one—but, if push comes to shove, I may have to think about what is going to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. At this stage, those numbers of people are really on the side of the people not in health insurance.I am getting advice showing me different ways of looking at this but, until we have done that inquiry, we are still left in the situation of having to take some kind of ethical or moral judgment on the impacts on people and the impacts on health. It is very difficult for us to make decisions as to whether or not this will bring the greatest benefit to the private insurers when, if anything, the evidence that came through from the various inquiries is that we have no guarantee that specifically benefiting the private health insurers is going to bring the greatest outcomes in Australia's health and in Australia's hospital systems. So until we do that I am afraid that, on this issue, I may have to look at what will be of the greatest benefit for the greatest number of patients in Australia.11:24:003253Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—It is important in considering the issues raised by Senator Evans to ask the question: is the opposition saying that the medical profession discriminates against patients getting the best care in the best setting because of their insurance status? The cheaper overheads should mean less gap for all patients. It is important to state that the procedures that will be available are available to all Australians through the provision of this legislation. It is about the most appropriate care for a patient in the most appropriate facilities. The Australian health care agreements cover public patients and allow for greater use of out-of-hospital care, and that is the intent of this legislation. The amendment that is being proposed by Senator Evans provides an incentive for an inappropriate shift of services from hospital or day hospital. Changing the fee to 85 per cent will provide a perverse incentive to shift inappropriate procedures to office based surgeries, despite the setting of rigorous standards and guidelines by the Commonwealth. The setting of the fee at 85 per cent will create divisions within the medical community as to the most appropriate location for the delivery of specific services. This will be in direct contrast to the setting of procedure lists for day surgeries, which was accomplished with the broad medical consensus under the auspices of the Day Surgery Council. I would hope that senators would see the merit in opposing Senator Evans's amendment.11:26:003253Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Minister, are you suggesting that hospital administrators would push people out of hospital into inappropriate settings? Who is going to be pushing these patients out of hospitals because they are going to be getting 85 per cent instead of 75 per cent?11:26:003253Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—What we are seeking to achieve is the most appropriate care in the most appropriate facility, and that may well be within the hospital or it may well be within the approved facility arrangement. Very obviously, geography and the availability of services in some places would come into account in that regard.11:27:003253Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Minister, unless I was mistaken, you were actually suggesting there would now be some inappropriate movement towards these facilities if we look at the rebate that is normally available for doctors in doctors' surgeries. We are, after all, talking about an intermediate facility, a facility not as expensive and not, I guess—as far as equipment and resources available—staffed and serviced as well as a day hospital or a hospital, but a step up from an ordinary consulting room in a doctor's surgery.I suspect that many of these facilities are, in fact, almost already available in those multipractice facilities—nine-, 10-, 15-doctor facilities—that we have in our capital cities, where they are already doing minor operations. They are already doing extensive procedures that could also be done in casualty in hospitals. Indeed, in Adelaide casualty services often send people even with broken limbs back to some of these clinics. These facilities will be upgraded to the sort of service that you are looking at.Our concern is that some people may actually not be able to use these new facilities because of the additional cost. It may be that, rather than go to a public hospital, it would be much better for this procedure to be done in this facility, but when they are faced with a 25 per cent gap they are going to say, `No, I'll wait and I will use the public hospital,' which is by far, for the community purse, the most expensive option. The problem is whether the actual purse that is opened is the public section belonging to the state government or the part belonging to the federal government. This is where I can see the minister's concerns—he does not want to see cost shifting happening.11:29:003254Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Let me give the assurance that patients will be treated under the public health system, but it is, as I have said previously, a matter of making sure—whether it is in hospital or in the approved facility—it is the most appropriate that is available.I did say earlier that we are concerned that changing the fee to 85 per cent could provide a perverse incentive to shift inappropriately. It was more the financial dynamic of it rather than where—and I am not questioning it—the proper and appropriate health care should take place. We all accept that. There is, by the intent of Senator Chris Evans's amendment, the introduction of this financial aspect.11:30:003254Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Who will do the shifting? Are you saying that hospital administrators are going to be making the decision?11:30:003254Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The issue that concerns us is the shifting from the state funding arrangement to the Commonwealth basis of funding.11:30:003254Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I seek further clarification, and this adds to the concerns expressed by Senator Lees. Given that you were expecting that people who are privately insured would be more likely to be attracted to the option of using these intermediate facilities, are you saying that it will not be a problem if there is a greater number of privately insured people using those interim facilities but it will be a problem if there is a greater number of public patients using these facilities? I share some of the concern that this might be used by the Commonwealth, or by Commonwealth funding mechanisms, that more people who ought to be in hospital get shoved out into the intermediate facilities. If that is not a problem for people with private health insurance, and that seems to be the direction in which you would be going in providing this option within the legislation, why is it therefore a problem for public health patients?11:31:003254Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The issue is essentially one of aligning the private sector arrangement and the public sector arrangement to give equity between them. If we focus on the particular amendment, we believe that the change to the 85 per cent will certainly work against those interests.11:32:003254Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Is the problem the differential? Is it not perhaps best that both groups should be treated the same at the 85 per cent rate?11:32:003254Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I think perhaps we are getting a bit off track. I understand there is some concern about cost shifting, but I want to address it from the point of view of the patient and providing some equity. It is still the case that it will be far more expensive for a public patient to go to an approved facility, from the patient's point of view. Our proposition suggests we will pick up 85 per cent of the doctor's fee and the facility's fee, but there will still be an extra cost in terms of the facility's fee and the gap for the patient going to an approved facility.We are trying to provide some equality of treatment to allow public patients to access what is considered by the government to be potentially a more efficient and cost-effective method of treating some procedures. It is the case that the government will still approve what procedures are performed in these approved facilities. They will still have control over that sort of thing. So I think the minister's argument about people being pushed out of public hospitals is not the case. It will still not be attractive for a person who cannot afford it to go to an approved facility as a public patient. This at least will provide some assistance for those who want to do that. It might well alleviate some of the pressure on public hospitals and their waiting lists. We think it will at least provide some equity of treatment and that the government ought to be encouraging both public and private patients to utilise and access measures which it thinks are beneficial. So this is the balancing measure.I do not want to labour the point, but we do want to note that the minister will retain control over approving which procedures occur. I do not think people will be forced out of hospitals, as the minister suggests. The question for a lot of patients will be that they will not be able to afford to take advantage of procedures at approved facilities, but it will at least provide some support for those who want to take advantage of that option and who remain public patients.11:34:003255Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am a little more inclined, after this debate, to be supporting Senator Chris Evans. If you have a situation where somebody wants to have a mole removed and they go to a GP who suggests that the person can wait and go into a public hospital to have the job done, then, being uninsured, that person would not be up for any costs at the public hospital. But if the doctor says it can be done quicker in the community approved facility, that person, being uninsured, would be up for a cost. Is that correct? If that is correct—I think that is the point which other honourable senators have been talking about—does it mean that sort of practice will become more widespread and doctors and others will be encouraging patients to use the community facilities more and more?On the other hand, as I see it, those who would have the procedure done in an approved facility will be at no disadvantage than had they gone to a private hospital. It does not seem to me that there will be any difference. The gap might be more in a private hospital, but there does not seem to me to be a disadvantage there to those people. There does seem to be a disadvantage for an uninsured person to, say, have the mole removed in the approved facility in the community as against having it done in the public hospital. That is the question that I am asking the minister.11:38:003255Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Senator Chris Evans and Senator Harradine have raised some important issues that go to the importance of understanding that there is a crucial tie to the agreement with the states that the states can pay under the Commonwealth-state agreements. The state has the ability to pay for a range of treatments in a range of settings, including the new facilities, unlike the previous Labor Party Medicare arrangements.In the example used by Senator Harradine with regard to the mole and the appropriate service, yes, if the treatment is undertaken in a public hospital there is no cost—in effect, it is picked up by the state. But should that then be referred, as in the second instance that you quote, to a facility, then it needs to be recognised that the states should still pay for the service in that particular area. I hope that clarifies the position. Question put: That the requested amendment (Senator Chris Evans's ) be agreed to.11:43:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)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.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. *Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. 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.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Crossin, P. M. MacGibbon, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Hill, R. M.Hutchins, S. Crane, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that schedule 2, item 9 stand as printed.11:46:003256Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Could we perhaps revisit the amendments of mine that we were discussing yesterday. They were amendments (1) and (2) on waiting periods on sheet 1283. I think that might clarify the situation a little before we get to the item that you have just called.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Is it the wish of the committee to return to Senator Harradine's amendments (1) and (2) and to Senator Tambling's amendment to amendment (2)? There being no objection it is so ordered.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am prepared to accept the amendment to my amendment that has been foreshadowed by the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary—indeed, the minister—has sent around a letter to all senators in respect of this matter. I have considered that thoroughly. All other senators involved in the debate will have that. In the letter the parliamentary secretary said:This morning many Senators appeared frustrated with the Governments concern to ensure that the amendment moved by Senator Harradine did not provide an avenue for people with a pre-existing need for psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation.It is not necessary for me to read all of it, because all other—8U4LEESSenator Lees—It was sent to our offices, was it? I did not get a copy.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It is addressed `TO ALL SENATORS' and is titled `Pre-Existing Ailment Provisions'. Apparently our colleagues from the Australian Democrats and the Greens do not have a copy of this, although it is addressed to all senators.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—A copy of it has been circulated as an amendment.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—The document goes on:Currently, the National Health Act 1953 . . . provides a waiting period for all fund members of 2 months for all conditions. The Act also provides for a waiting period of 12 months for obstetrics and 12 months for pre-existing ailments as defined . . . The Government agrees with the intent of Senator Harradine's amendments but are keen to ensure the continuation of the status quo and avoid incentive for increased `hit-and-run' behaviour in relation to psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation by unscrupulous health fund members.In response to Senator Harradine's concerns, the Government is proposing to support Senator Harradine's original amendment with one important addition . . . And that is the one they are providing. Perhaps I should allow the parliamentary secretary to explain to the committee what that means. Having regard to this explanation, I am inclined to support the amendment, as it would simply continue the status quo.11:51:003257Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate that this is an important issue. The memo to which Senator Harradine referred was distributed to the interested senators' and members' offices yesterday, and I am happy to table a copy of it. I am pleased to respond to the comments by Senator Harradine that indicate that he would be amenable to what I will move as an amendment to his.I advise that the minister has agreed to an inquiry into the pre-existing ailments in the National Health Act, with particular attention to psychiatric care, palliative care and rehabilitation. There will be three eminent people selected by the minister to undertake this inquiry. The minister has listened to the concerns raised, particularly those by senators yesterday, in regard to this issue, and believes that further discussion is needed. The minister does not believe that this matter can be resolved on the floor of the Senate today. This inquiry will be able to look carefully at the issues raised by senators and others, including discrimination, community rating, hit-and-run behaviour, patient history, and similar issues. We acknowledge that we will take issues in response to the inquiry seriously. To ensure the status quo, I move the amendment to Senator Harradine's amendment that has been circulated in my name this morning:(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 7), after item 9, insert:9A After paragraph (j) of Schedule 1 Insert: (ja) subject to paragraph (kc), 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. 11:52:003257Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I have just received the amendment and have read through it. We will be supporting it. We do not wish to encourage hit-and-run behaviour. Looking through your letter, it seems that that was a possibility, and so we will be supporting your amendment.11:53:003257Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting the amended amendment as a reasonable result of negotiations and arguments about this particular issue. The opposition's view is that there should not be unreasonable waiting periods but the pre-existing ailment rule is an important way to balance the interests of existing members and those of new members. Senators Margetts and Harradine have made useful comments about the problems with the interpretation of the pre-existing ailment rule, and we particularly welcome the inquiry announced by Senator Tambling a few minutes ago. The opposition will be supporting the amendment.11:53:003257Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In brief, I indicate that the Greens (WA) will be prepared to support the amended amendment and that we would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for indicating that there will be some inquiry into the issue of pre-existing ailments. It is a particular issue, as we mentioned before, for those people who may well have a mental illness which they are not aware of; and there needs to be some means of dealing with that.The clear intention of the majority of the Senate is, as I hear it, that there ought to be some move in government to improve the coverage of palliative care and such things as mental health problems, and that this might be some way of finding out what the problems are. Obviously, if the three eminent people are suitable, we will look forward to their report to see what positive steps we can take to improve the coverage of illnesses which may end up costing the community a great deal more in lots of other ways—in social and even financial and other ways—if we do not deal with them in a proper manner.11:55:003258Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I think Senator Margetts has said it all. I also welcome the inquiry. Going to the practical, the technical situation is that I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the parliamentary secretary. If he wants to have the honour of moving it, I will be happy with that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Senator Tambling, you would seek leave to move your amendment, I believe. Or are you just going to move a whole new amendment now?11:55:003258Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—For the convenience of the Senate, I think that it would probably be more appropriate if we dealt with my amendment and then Senator Harradine's, and that will get the form of words in the correct order.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you seeking leave to amend your amendment from yesterday, so that it reads, `subject to paragraph (kc)' basically? Leave is granted.11:56:003258Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—So that we are clear on this, Mr Chairman, I think that I actually moved my amendment yesterday, so I would need to seek leave to withdraw it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I do not believe so. All that has to happen is that Senator Tambling has to amend his amendment from yesterday, and then your amended amendment can be agreed to.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—What was his amendment yesterday?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—His amendment yesterday was `subject to pre-existing ailments rule in paragraph (kc)'; he is amending that to `subject to paragraph (kc),' which is the first part of his amendment. The rest of his amendment is actually your amendment; and so he is actually amending your amendment. It is the one that you have in front of you.11:57:003258Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—There is agreement.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. Everybody has agreed to it. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Tambling to his amendment yesterday be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is now that Senator Harradine's amendment No. 2, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine's amendment No. 1 is also before the chair. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Tambling, would you move part 2 of your amendment.Amendment (by Senator Tambling) agreed to:2. Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 13), omit "paragraph (j)", substitute "paragraphs (j) and (ja)".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now go to schedule 2, item 9. The question is that the item stand as printed.11:58:003258Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I intend being very brief. This is Labor amendment No. 6, which seeks to oppose that schedule. It is identical to Senator Harradine's amendment No. 3, as I understand it. Item 9 of schedule 2 will be opposed because it creates a precedent in that policies may be offered for approved facilities procedures which exclude coverage of palliative care, psychiatric care and rehabilitation. It would be against the interests of older persons if this provision were to be rolled back into hospital tables. We have a concern that this might well represent the thin end of the wedge and we believe that the full range of services ought to be offered. Therefore, we commend that proposal to the Senate and indicate that we will be opposing that schedule.11:58:003258Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I too am opposing that schedule, because it creates a precedent when health policies being offered in approved facilities exclude coverage for palliative care, psychiat ric care and rehabilitation. As I have said previously, this does not work in the best interests of the elderly, the chronically ill and the vulnerable in our society. Given the spirit of my other amendments, it is essential that this part of this schedule be opposed because the potential for discrimination is too high and the cost to our community is too great.One of the difficulties I have foreseen with this bill is in the area of precedent. Whilst moving health insurance into out of hospital services seems, in principle, quite sensible, there are undercurrents in this bill which seek to serve the commercial interests of health funds before the health needs of the community. It is incumbent upon the Senate to reverse those policies and move decisively to protect the interests of the elderly, the vulnerable and the chronically ill.12:01:003259Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—We will be supporting this amendment. Minister, where do you envisage these facilities will be set up; what sorts of locations?12:02:003259Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that the facilities could generally be in association with doctors' surgeries. In fact, in this day and age, many doctors operate within hospital campuses.12:02:003259Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Do you envisage, particularly with some of the larger aged care facilities, that facilities such as this may be set up there, perhaps on an irregular basis? People would no longer have to be moved to a public hospital for some procedures but could actually have their treatment within the nursing home or hostel complex that they live in.12:03:003259Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I indicate that that is an issue that should be addressed, especially where it is initiated by the medical fraternity and medical practitioners. Of course, there would need to be an appropriate set of standards and conditions to set it up, but I take your point.12:03:003259Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The savings would be considerable, even if we are looking at rehabilitation. I know that, generally, in the longer-term that may be a worry for the funds because it may end up being quite an expensive course of treatment. But if we are concerned about older Australians, as Senator Harradine has been saying, surely it would be more practical, rather than having to ambulance them out and into a facility, to have these on site in the larger centres. I cannot understand why the funds would not want that option so that instead of taking people out to a private hospital or a day facility, procedures could be done on site, even if it is rehabilitative rather than anything else. In supporting this amendment, I cannot understand why the government has done this in the first place and why the funds want it. We are going to be dealing with some regulations later on where we will be looking at specific procedures. Why was this ever put in in the first place? What is the worry?12:04:003259Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The point is well taken. I can sympathise and identify with the very issue that Senator Lees has raised. My mother is 90 years of age this year and has recently gone through a number of tortuous situations with broken bones where she has had to be evacuated from the nursing home for what are often minor issues and procedures. I would have thought they would have been more appropriately conducted in the nursing home in which she currently lives. I can certainly see the circumstances and the issues and, as I said, we will be responsive to the issue. It certainly needs to be addressed, and it is one that we should be discussing in further detail with the medical fraternity.We do understand and empathise with Senator Harradine's concern that older people and people with chronic illnesses are able to obtain access to health insurance. Whilst we do not believe the amendments proposed by Senator Harradine and the opposition are strictly necessary, we are prepared to support them. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that schedule 2, item 9 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.12:05:003260Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 7 and 8:(7) Schedule 3, item 4, page 19 (lines 28 to 30), omit paragraph (d).[section 78—minister's decision-making criteria](8) Schedule 3, item 5, page 21 (lines 16 to 18), omit paragraph (d).[section 78A—minister's decision-making criteria]These amendments remove the respective sections of the proposed power of the minister to approve rule changes and premium increases on the basis that it might `adversely affect the interests of the private health insurance industry'. This puts the interests of the industry in front of the interests of the consumers and creates the possibility that the minister could refuse approval for rules that would benefit consumers generally. The government has been unable to give an example of the rule changes that would be approved on this ground and would not manifestly be to the disadvantage of the consumer.It could be argued that this ground gives scope for anticompetitive behaviour by the funds which has the sanction of the minister, and raises serious trade practice questions. The overriding principle should be the interests of the consumer and it should be the prime determining factor, in the opinion of the opposition. The fact that this amendment is being put is an indication of the lack of commercial consumer focus among the health funds.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, I advise that schedule 3 was removed earlier, so we do not need to proceed with these amendments.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Thank you for that advice, and obviously the wisdom of the Senate in this regard.Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments and a request.3260Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.12:07:003260Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I move the amendment on revised sheet 1281:At the end of the motion, add:"and that there be laid on the table as soon as practicable after the end of each period of 6 months, commencing with the 6 months ending on 31 December 1999, a report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission containing an assessment of any anti-competitive or other practices by health funds or providers which reduce the extent of health cover for consumers and increase their out-of-pocket medical and other expenses".This is a very important matter, as I think all honourable senators would agree. Given that we have just amended the legislation, and given the previous 30 per cent rebate debate conducted in the Senate, I believe there is a heightened expectation in the community that these changes will be positive for the future of private health insurance and for those who purchase it.Unfortunately, over the last few years the community's expectation of the effectiveness of private health insurance has often failed to be realised. Throughout the period that we have been examining the private health insurance industry, it has been obvious that premium price increases, medical out-of-pocket expenses and cooperation issues between health funds and doctors have all contributed to the problems people face when using their private health insurance. It seems to me to be incumbent on the Senate to call for regular analysis by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to satisfy the Senate's concerns that people with health insurance are not unfavourably discriminated against and are not prey to the anticompetitive behaviour of funds or providers.It is vital that the ACCC be required to supply this information—and I have changed this to a half-yearly basis. Given the importance of this issue and the sizeable public subsidy now being allocated to private health insurance, it is paramount that the Senate receive ongoing and professional analysis of the effectiveness and fairness of the operation of private health insurance. I believe this should be a significant and well resourced activity of the ACCC conducted within the core business of its strategic operations with regular reporting to the parliament.12:11:003261Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I can understand the tenor of the comments put forward by Senator Harradine but I would like to amend the words that he has put forward by adding words to the central piece of his amendment. That is, after the words `funds or providers which' I add the words `comes to the attention of the Commission, and' and then the paragraph would proceed with the words `reduces the extent' et cetera. I have circulated that particular form of words and so I move an amendment to Senator Harradine's proposed amendment:After "providers which", insert "comes to the attention of the Commission, and".It is important to recognise that the burden of proof for the ACCC could be too great under the proposal put forward by Senator Harradine. It would need to look at more than 40,000 providers, hundreds of hospitals and dozens of funds. I suggest that any issue that comes to the attention of senators should be brought to the attention of the ACCC but, as I have said in the amendment, it is just a matter of the reasonableness of the particular request.12:12:003261Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My problem is that this basically means the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does not actually have to do anything; it only has to respond. Perhaps there is another mechanism. Perhaps we should be talking of the Health Insurance Commission or someone else out there. My reading of what Senator Harradine wants—and I think what most of us want—is somebody actually out there looking, not someone sitting back behind a desk somewhere waiting for somebody to bring something to their attention.12:13:003261Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition does not support the government's amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Harradine and we are supporting the original wording.12:13:003261Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am concerned about the effect that the amended amendment will have. This is a very serious matter. Members of parliament constantly receive concerns from the electorate about the gap and services. The government is suggesting that, unless these came to the attention of the ACCC, they would not be required and this particular amendment would not be triggered.This is a very important measure because the parliament wants to know what is happening. It wants to know what is happening overall in all of the various areas of service—funds, premiums and the like—and I think that should be a fundamental and core activity of the Competition and Consumer Commission, not just when it comes to their attention. It should be an ongoing core function and they should, as indicated in the amendment, be required to report to the parliament each six months. I indicated in my speech that the examination must be well funded. I know the ACCC have a huge amount of work on their plate but this is a very important issue and, with due respect, my amendment should be supported.12:15:003261Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am the odd one out here. I do not intend to oppose the amendment, but I have been quite uncomfortable with it because, as honourable senators will realise, I do think we should be looking at the issue of health funding. One of the reasons I am uncomfortable with this is that we have required the ACCC to become experts in just about everything of late. In telecommunications, health care, primary industry and energy—you name it—the ACCC has become the guru or the person who decides whether what we have is good or bad, but in a very narrow sense—whether it is competitive or anticompetitive. My discomfort is that, having set up this inquiry, the government will continue to say, `We have an ongoing inquiry; the ACCC is looking at it.' They are, but in a very narrow sense.I understand what is going on: we are looking at the out-of-pocket expenses. But that does not necessarily mean health outcomes. It may mean we are putting more people through the system, it may mean fewer people have to pay less—I do not know. That is obviously good, but it does not necessarily mean we have better health outcomes. My concern is that, in the end, we will reduce everything to some sort of dollar and cents measure of health outcomes. That is my discomfort. I do not intend to vote against it if the majority of the Senate choose to let this go through, but I want to remind the Senate that this is not a replacement for an inquiry into health funding and outcomes and whether we are getting the best medical system.12:17:003262Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the seriousness of the issues that have been raised by Senator Lees, Senator Harradine and Senator Margetts. Certainly the government is not in any way intending to cut across what is an appropriate reporting mechanism and investigation. I should also point out that there is legislation currently before the House of Representatives that we will get the opportunity to comment on in this place shortly, and that relates to the inspectorial powers, in particular, of the current regulatory body, the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. It may well be that when that legislation is before the Senate these issues that Senator Harradine rightly addresses may be more appropriately dealt with then.I take the points that Senator Margetts makes with regard to the possible appropriateness of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and indicate that the government will be keeping this issue under close surveillance and monitoring. It is very important and I would certainly seek support, in the first instance, for the amendment I have proposed. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Tambling to Senator Harradine's amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Harradine be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Tambling as amended be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills3262r7433262Debate resumed.(Quorum formed)12:22:003262Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The opposition does support this legislation. This bill amends the referendum machinery provisions of 1984 to provide for the funding and distribution of material for the purposes of the referenda on the republic and on the preamble. The bill permits expenditure on matters otherwise inconsistent with subsection 11(4) of the act for the duration of 1999 for the purposes of those referenda only. The effect of this amendment is to allow the provision of $7.5 million to each of the yes and no campaign committees appointed by the Prime Minister for the promotion of their respective cases. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explains that the government will also spend $4.5 million on a neutral education campaign.More substantively, the bill amends subsection 11(4) of the act to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to spend money on a wider distribution of the yes and no campaign material than is currently provided for. The amendment will allow the distribution of this material by post or other means, for instance over the counter, to persons other than electors, and also via the Internet.The bill also amends subsection 25(3) of the act and, in doing so, provides for multiple ballot papers of different colours where two or more referenda are held on the same day, as will be the case for the referenda on both the republic and the preamble. Finally, the bill corrects a reference in paragraph 36A(3)(b) of the act to appropriately protect the secrecy of a voter's ballot.It is interesting to note in this context that the government does intend to retain subsection 11(1) of the act, which provides for the writing of the formal yes and no cases. The government has indicated that selected members and senators from within its ranks will be permitted to vote no to the republic bill so that an official no case can be prepared in accordance with that subsection. It is not clear whether a no vote will occur on the preamble bill, but I think it is becoming a bit more evident that there will probably be a body of opinion in this community that will be campaigning and voting no in respect of that preamble.One cannot talk about this legislation without talking about some of the objects of the legislation and some of the subjects of the referenda. One comes directly to the question of the preamble. In that context, it has probably been a disappointing 48 hours or so for this nation to have seen its Prime Minister sitting down with a coterie of very selective and selected mates and putting together a form of words which have basically been thrust upon this country as the only option for a preamble for a constitution that may embody and reflect the independent status that Australia has achieved over the last 97 years, since we adopted the initial constitution.It is somewhat of an authoritarian and arrogant position to have been taken by the Prime Minister. There was much to be gained by him in coming up with a preamble which would embody and reflect the spirit of the country and do everything that preambles should do. At the same time, opportunities lost in politics can quite often lead to very negative impacts on those who lose those opportunities. I think the Prime Minister has turned an opportunity to create a broad and inspirational preamble into a loss for himself personally and for his government as well.In the last 24 hours we have seen the preamble—the Prime Minister's personal preamble—described as an inspirational blancmange or a shambles. In fact, there has hardly been a commentator in the country who has not had fundamental problems with the preamble, apart from the usual suspects who are always there to back up the Prime Minister: Geoff Blainey and Paddy McGuinness. Apart from those very isolated and sectional characters, the broader community has basically said that the Prime Minister has dropped the ball.What the Prime Minister should have done in framing a preamble was to adopt a broader approach. He should have looked at some of the precedents of nations of the world—nations which, in their preambles, quite often espouse the aspirations of liberty, equality, truth and justice. They are preambles which reflect the essence of a country's history; preambles which reflect not just where countries have been, but their present and their future. He got it wrong in terms of substance and he got it wrong in terms of style. One only has to read the press over the last 48 hours to see how fundamentally wrong he got it.We have a preamble that is now being forced on the Australian public by a Prime Minister who says, `I worked it out and you have to cop it. If you do not like it, you are not going to get an alternative.' For me and for most Australians, that is the height of political arrogance.The starting point should have been the Constitutional Convention of some 12 to 15 months ago. The Prime Minister promised to adopt the recommendations of that convention. The convention came up with 10 core ideas on what should be reflected in a preamble. That convention began with the fundamental starting point that the proper function of a preamble was to offer the context through which the actual legislation should be read, interpreted and seen, not just by the courts but by the people of the country.That convention also said that, if we are going to go down the road to becoming a republic, then we need a preamble to reflect that direction. The Prime Minister chooses to disconnect the preamble from the republic and the propositions for a republic. He thinks we can do one without the other. But it is the view of many in this country that, if Australia is to become a republic, then there should be a preamble which fits the bill. I think that was almost the unanimous view of the Constitutional Convention last year. They said that we should have a preamble which offers context for the bill and offers context for a republic in Australia.The Constitutional Convention also said that there should be at least 10 core ideas reflected in the preamble. They included rule of law, representative democracy, recognition of original occupiers and custodians, and cultural diversity. A preamble should reflect not just our starting point of history as a post-Federation nation of 1901 but also how we have developed and how we aspire to develop.Those developments—the composition of our people and the development of Australia into an independent sovereign nation; probably the most fundamental of those developments over the last 97 years—should have been given a much more substantive recognition in the words of the Prime Minister. Reference to God is something I have no problem with. It is already in the constitution. I regret that to a certain extent the reference to God has been politicised over recent weeks by a Prime Minister who has chosen to do so. One can look at other constitutions and see all the things that have been important to mankind and womankind—the Prime Minister has chosen to take another course. Instead of noble words and aspirations, we have reflected in our proposed constitutional preamble the concerns and prejudices of one man over some 30 years.That is obviously a problem for us and it is going to be a problem for the nation. It is a problem not just because it reflects the concerns of John Howard but because it reflects the concerns of a very small group of people. In doing so, what does it do? Take, for instance, the Aboriginal issue and Aboriginal occupation or custodianship. We have a Prime Minister who wants us just to refer to occupation. But in doing so does he not attempt to wind back the development of the common law in this country? Does he not attempt to wind back the cases of Mabo and Wik, but particularly Mabo? That is a court judgment which he himself is on record as saying he supports. The common law of this country recognises more than just occupation. Why is it not appropriate to recognise that in the constitutional preamble?It is no wonder that leading journalists like Paul Kelly have described this preamble as a shambles. It is also no wonder, given the other factors in the suggested preamble, that people like Paul Kelly reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister's preamble seems to `wander about like a tipsy journalist' and to delve into `issues of prejudice, fashion, ideology . . . and mateship.'His preamble is also legally flawed. He talks about equal sovereignty of all citizens. One has got to try and work out what it means and one has got to try and work out why we put in the preamble the concept of citizenship when we do not have it in the Constitution. But, as Jack Waterford in the editorial in the Canberra Times said quite elegantly the other day, what we have got to recognise is that our Constitution basically rests sovereignty in the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. He says:In this Westminster model the Queen and the Parliament are sovereign, not the people.The Prime Minister has a proposed preamble which is inconsistent with the rest of the body of the Constitution.As I say, there is concern about the content of what has been proposed, but I think there should be another concern as well. That concern should be the small number of people who have been involved in drafting this particular preamble. They were a select few. There is the Prime Minister. There is Les Murray, who was chosen essentially, I suppose, because of his long-stated antagonism to political correctness. Let me say that Les Murray was chosen to draft a citizenship oath by the previous Labor government. He was chosen by Senator Michael Tate, but it was my view when I took over the portfolio and the view of the Senate that the citizenship oath that he had recommended to government and to the parliament was inappropriate, and the Senate chose to change it. He has had one outing in this area and he was rejected.The other person who was chosen was the Prime Minister's soul mate in matters of culture and race. That is, of course, Professor Geoffrey Blainey. You could probably not get two less inclusive people, two people less representative of the way Australia has developed over the last 50 years at least, if not the last 90, than Professor Blainey and Les Murray. When you toss in the Prime Minister as well, it is no wonder that we have a preamble which really has been laughed at across the country. We have the voices and the souls of darkness drafting the preamble for the Australian people.When one looks at Professor Blainey's performance in the public debate over the last 15 years or so, one cannot ignore the fact that it was Blainey who in 1984 first ignited the so-called race debate. It was he who loudly agitated against Australia becoming, as he called it, Asianised. He railed against the so-called Asianisation of Australia and he argued for a racially discriminatory immigration policy. Not content with that odious contribution to our public life, Blainey kept on agitating against multiculturalism, claiming that such a policy led to a tribalisation of Australia, a cluster of tribes. It was again Blainey in 1993 who railed against the Mabo judgment, denigrating the High Court and warning of two half-nations.Blainey has never recanted on these views. On the contrary, he continues to affirm his thinking about Asian migration and continues to contend his belief that the Native Title Act is racist legislation. It is no surprise that Blainey is the hero of the extreme right-wing fringe in Australian politics. Unfortunately for Australia, he is also the hero of this Prime Minister. That is Blainey's contribution to the debate. That, for me, rules him out as someone who is best suited to advise the government as to what an appropriate preamble should be for a diverse, multicultural society like ours.The other person is Les Murray. With respect to Murray, it is probably best to put him in the bundle that Dr Mark McKenna of the ANU put him in this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald. McKenna refers to Les Murray's published Subhuman Redneck Poems and cites a poem titled `A Brief History' where Murray rails against fashionable ideology and expresses concern about those who want to declare Australia Asian. McKenna says:For Murray, Howard and Blainey, the real victim of the historical revisionism and political realignment of the '80s and '90s was the mythology of traditional white Australia. Howard's preamble is the ultimate article of faith for the Right of Australian politics angered by the identity politics of the Hawke-Keating era. Cast in this light, the wording of the preamble makes more sense. The days of black armband history are over—we are now "free" to be proud of our heritage.That is what the Prime Minister says. That is what his mates say. That is what the people who drafted this preamble say. As I say, the dark voices of public debate in Australia find their channel through this Prime Minister.What are we supposed to do? The Prime Minister said:We refer to Aboriginals and indigenous Australians in our preamble, and we honour them for their ancient and continuing cultures.This, he says, is what really happened; it is an historical fact that we have honoured them `for their ancient and continuing cultures'. Forget about what we have done to them in terms of stolen generations. Forget about dispossession. Forget about all the other atrocities that have been committed and continue to be committed by way of racist legislation from this government in respect of indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister says, `What we have to believe in the future is that white Australians have actually honoured indigenous Australians for their ancient and continuing culture.' Isn't that the black armband view of history? Doesn't this Prime Minister now want to entrench that black armband view of history, espoused by Professor Blainey, in our Constitution?We have a Prime Minister who rails against political correctness. He is a Prime Minister who rails against those who believe that people should be treated with dignity and be protected against racial vilification, racial discrimination and the language and other actions of sexual discrimination. The Prime Minister rails against people who believe in political correctness as a concept to deliver a fair go and to respect decency and the dignity of individuals. This is a Prime Minister who rejects all those concepts of a fair go, dignity and decency when it comes to protecting the victims of discrimination, but it is a Prime Minister who wants to entrench his own political correctness in the Australian Constitution and arrogantly says to the rest of us, `You've got no say in it.' That is not on.I think the Australian people, in increasing numbers, will reject this degree of arrogance by the Prime Minister. It is important for us in this place and for those in the House of Representatives to think about how we can play ourselves into the production—into the game to produce a new preamble. One concept that probably would be appropriate for us to look at in the next few weeks would be the idea of a parliamentary committee—be it a Senate committee or a joint committee—setting up and commissioning a panel of people more broadly representative than the one selected by the Prime Minister and with more inspirational views of Australia and the aspirations of Australians.Perhaps a parliamentary committee could commission a group of people to come up with an alternative preamble. It is a much more democratic way to go and, at the end of the day, I am sure it would come up with a much better product than that of the dark minds and souls that produced this preamble. I said at the start that we support this legislation but, at the same time, we have enormous problems with the proposal that has been put up by the Prime Minister in respect of the preamble.12:40:003266Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If it had gotten any closer to 12.45 p.m. I would have asked whether it was worthwhile starting. However, as there are five minutes before we start on our lunchtime legislation, I guess it does give me time to work up a head of steam—and I have a head of steam in relation to this legislation. The very fact that it was meant to be coughed through or asked to be considered as cough-through legislation—as non-controversial—I think is quite extraordinary. Senator Bolkus has indicated that some elements of the legislation and some elements of the move towards the referendum are obviously controversial, but I would like to add a few more.The Greens (WA) have been concerned about the process that has led up to this Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I would reiterate that the whole element of the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention was problematical because only half of those people were elected; the other half were appointed. It was, to a large extent, a set-up job by the government, which was hoping to get as tightly controlled a constitutional convention as possible. The system of voluntary voting was of concern to many people and was of concern to the Greens (WA). In this process, although there were many different opinions, the funding for only two very narrow lines—the no case and the minimal change case—meant that, right from the beginning, a whole range of people in the community were cut out of the process. As I said, the nomination of a proportion of the delegates was very indicative of the role the government wanted to play in trying to keep a lid on whatever outcomes there were as a result of this Constitutional Convention.There was a lack of proper community consultation—whether it was for the preamble, whether it was for the Constitutional Convention—about how we should put it together and the process by which we should continue. The government has never thought it necessary—and, unfortunately, it is not getting a lot of gingering from the opposition—that it should at some stage go to the people of Australia, not just in a referendum, and ask, `We are actually interested in what you have to say. Why don't you write submissions?'I have mentioned before that in Western Australia, in relation to the Commission on Government, the government went to the people of Western Australia and asked, `Are you interested in issues of the Constitution?' They said yes. They held a number of different fora throughout Western Australia which were well attended. There was a lot of interest, and there were lots and lots of submissions. It was a very important process. It is still ongoing, and these kinds of things cannot happen overnight. Writing a Constitutional preamble is a nonsense—because the government insists that the preamble has no legal standing—without any concept of what the people of Australia think is important and without any concept of any changes that may happen to the Constitution itself or to what it might be in the future.There does, in my opinion, need to be broader constitutional reform, and I refer to the work of the only elected Greens representative on the Constitutional Convention, Cath Moore. Christine Milne was also one of the selected representatives on the Constitutional Convention, and they were the two Greens representatives. At the Constitutional Convention, they both mentioned that there did need to be broader constitutional change. This was in response to a motion by the Reverend Tim Costello—and I will get to that in a moment—who wanted to look at the process for further constitutional consultation.Christine Milne said:I have great pleasure in seconding this motion. When I came to the Convention I expressed my disappointment that the agenda was so narrow—as I did too when we looked at the bill in the first place. She goes on:When you talk to people in the community—in saleyards, in church halls or wherever people are—and start asking them what becoming a republic means to them they talk about far more than just the head of state. They talk about the fact that this is a very special moment of redefinition for Australia, that it coincides, by historical convenience, if you like, with the beginning of a new millennium. It is a sign of hope for ordinary Australians that Australia's coming to a republic might also address wider issues of the Constitution, broader issues of reform, that it would address seriously the issue of granting constitutional recognition and rights to indigenous people and to all Australians. They want to talk about how people can get more involved in the political process.Debate interrupted.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., we will now move to non-controversial legislation.Bills3267r7233267Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:003267Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999.12:45:003267Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I would like to say a few words about the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 because of its importance. Whilst my colleague Senator Conroy was very brief and has indicated our support, I think it is important to put on the record a little about the bounty itself so that people realise the importance of it to the industry. It is a fast-growing industry indeed, and it is one that supports a lot of Australians in jobs.The bounty was originally introduced back in the 1940s. In 1947 it went to 25 per cent of the construction costs of vessels; in 1975 it was on the selling price and was there to encourage the construction of vessels of less than 6,000 tonnes; in 1980 it went to a percentage of the construction costs for vessels greater than 150 tonnes and for fishing vessels greater than 21 metres. In 1988 the bounty went to two rates: 20 per cent for prescribed vessels—that is, tugs, bulk carriers and the like—and 15 per cent for others. In 1989 there was a rejigging of the bounty to 15 per cent, phasing it down to five per cent over a period of time. It was changed again in 1993, when it was extended to nine per cent for 1993-94. It was decreased to seven per cent for 1995-96 and to five per cent for 1996-97. In their first budget in August 1996, the government terminated the bounty and, of course, this brought a great deal of reaction—so much so that the government were forced to reinstate it in December 1996 at a level of five per cent. In 1997, again under further pressure, it was extended to 1999.The reason for traversing that very quickly is the fact that it does show the importance of the bounty, and it does show that the bounty has been rejigged over a period of time to support an industry that is important to Australia and to our export earning capacity. Undoubtedly, the industry over that period of time has had its highs and lows. The bounty, though, has been essential because it has provided our industry with the capacity to have a level playing field, and of course this was the very reason for its reinstatement at the end of 1996—after pressure was exerted by the shipbuilding industry to have it continue because of the inability of the OECD to put its shipbuilding agreement in place.Whilst we support the bill, we say that it really does not go far enough. That can be seen when you look at the industry in places like Western Australia and Tasmania. I am told that in Western Australia last year the bounty amounted to nearly $9.4 million and in Tasmania almost $9 million. In Queensland the bounty was $6.3 million and in South Australia $0.38 million. In those states and my own state of Queensland it is not as significant an amount but it is, nonetheless, very important to the industries in those states. The industry itself provides a substantial number of jobs, and I have been told that in the order of 7,000 people are currently employed in the industry alone.The bounty has allowed innovative design and building techniques to be developed to enable us to compete on the world stage. Of course, the only problem with the removal of the bounty is the fact that the OECD shipbuilding agreement cannot be put in place. That agreement covers 80 per cent of the shipbuilding capacity throughout the world. The reason it cannot be put in place is that the US will not ratify it, hence the need for the bounty to be kept in place for Australian industry—to protect it.The Australian shipbuilding industry needs the guarantee of a level playing field. It is interesting to note that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of bountiable ships are exported from this nation. They cover vessels such as fast ferries, luxury cruisers and yachts, many of which show the cutting edge of technology and design that has been developed successfully by Australian manufacturers. They have been able to do this with the certainty and support of the bounty.Turning to my own state of Queensland, and this is why I wanted to speak to this bill for a few moments, an announcement was made last year of a major shipbuilding precinct in the Gold Coast area, on the Coomera River. One company alone will establish its building industry there, creating 300 jobs and $20 million worth of investment and, for the totality of the precinct, it is thought there will be something in the order of 3,000 jobs. If the level playing field is not there, the fledgling industry in this area will, of course, suffer in the longer term. It may be that there is a need for the continuation of the bounty long beyond the expectations of this government to protect Australian jobs and Australian industry when we cannot secure the agreement of the OECD shipbuilding agreement on a worldwide basis.There are currently two companies that attract the bounty in Queensland. Brisbane Ship Constructions at Bulimba benefited to the tune of $349,000 last year. They have 400 employees, and I understand they recently won a contract to make the patrol boats for Vietnam. NQEA at Cairns, whilst they are registered under the act, received no bounty last year but undoubtedly have benefited from the bounty over a period of time. The industry itself has gone from a turnover of $5 million in 1983 to a current turnover of $926 million. So one can see that it is a very important industry in terms of employment and in terms of export growth and export earnings. Whilst the government is pitching the bounty at three per cent, we believe the bounty would be better pitched at five per cent for the remaining period and beyond until the certainty has been given to the industry that the level playing field is there.In essence, the bill is supported, as indicated by my colleague Senator Conroy. It is to be commended, and one would undoubtedly believe that, if the level playing field cannot be achieved over a longer period of time, the Australian Shipbuilders Association will continue to press for support for an industry that is successful and will provide meaningful export income to this nation and meaningful jobs to people in the Australian community. I commend the bill to the Senate.12:54:003269Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I want to begin my remarks on the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 by quoting from the Department of the Parliamentary Library Information and Research Services Bills Digest No. 128. On page 2, they say:In the 1996-97 Budget, the Government announced that the bounty would be removed from 20 August 1996 and that transitional provisions would apply where contracts had been exchanged before this date or where work would be completed before this date but the bounty not claimed. Following representations from shipbuilders, the Australian Shipbuilders Association, and the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania in particular, the former Minister for Industry, Hon John Moore announced that the bounty would be extended until 31 December 1997. He stated that while the 1996/97 Budget had sought to scrap the bounty as a cost-cutting measure, it had since become clear to the Government that the world shipbuilding industry was not a `level playing field' and that the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement was stalling. On 7 May 1997 it was announced that the Government was extending the bounty to 30 June 1999 for commitments entered into by 31 December 1997. To be eligible, vessels must be at least 50 per cent complete by 30 June 1999. Pro rata payments will apply for vessels between 50 and 100% complete. In September 1998 the Prime Minister announced that the bounty would be further extended until 31 December 2000 at a rate of 3%.The Labor Party has stated that the shipbuilding bounty should be extended at 5 per cent indefinitely, until the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement, or a similar agreement, is ratified. They estimate that this would cost $86 million over three years to 2001-02.That is the quote from the library. It is fine as far as it goes but, although this bill is described here as non-controversial, this issue has been one of the most controversial the Senate has faced in the time of this government. When the coalition government came into power in 1996, it embarked on some astonishingly stupid policies in the field of industry development and assistance, and this was one of them—when it sought to get rid of the bounty. I think the Library sometimes misses the point. They say:Following representations from shipbuilders, the Australian Shipbuilders Association, and the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania in particular, the former Minister for Industry, Hon John Moore announced that the bounty would be extended . . .In fact, this was one of the great victories of the Senate. It was the Senate which insisted that this matter be properly reviewed. It was the Senate which held up the legislation. It was the Labor Party—in particular, Senator Cook—who did an outstanding job in terms of aggravating and activating on this issue. It was the Australian Democrats who vigorously supported the Labor Party in that activity and raised merry hell about this issue. Whilst I would not seek to underplay the contributions of those others mentioned in the Library's Bills Digest , the Library, frankly, missed the passion and intensity of that very controversial political debate.Underpinning this entire issue is hopefully a turnaround from the government from a policy where it sought to ideologically withdraw industry assistance from industries which are unable to compete on the world market unless they have appropriate strategic and financial assistance. This is not about protection. This is actually about being able to compete. It is about marketing and about getting our industries and our jobs up and running. Senator Hogg has just outlined some of the figures. This industry is valued at nearly $1 billion. If the government had had its way when it was in its period of stupidity in 1996, this industry would have been crushed by the economic consequences of that policy.Yes, I do welcome the continuation; yes, the Australian Democrats do support this bill. But the Labor Party is right: the bounty should be higher and the certainty and presence of that bounty should be guaranteed for as long as the United States and the countries in Europe continue to put our shipbuilding industry at a disadvantage.We must put this into perspective: the Senate was the victor in this issue. The Labor Party, in particular, deserves great credit for holding its ground against an ideological push by the government. The government deserves credit for eventually accepting not only the reality but also the good sense of the arguments that were being put to it. And it is the Australian Democrats who continue to argue for the proper retention of tariffs, bounties or subsidies where they are appropriate for the industry concerned, where they in fact preserve Australian jobs and the competitiveness of Australian industry versus other countries who in turn are subsidising, assisting or providing bounties to their industry in that manner. You have to fight fire with fire. There is no virtue in bounties or tariffs or subsidies on their own, but there is virtue when the whole purpose and intention is to keep us competitive and keep this nation able to sell its goods and to perform appropriately on the world trade stage. Accordingly, I record not only the Australian Democrats' gratitude that the bounty continue but also our view that it should be improved further.13:01:003270Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I just want to say a few words. I do not want to go over many of the points that have been made with regard to application of the bounty and when it was introduced. It is a very important bounty in terms of my state and a shipbuilder known as Incat in Tasmania. With the greatest respect to Senator Murray and the Western Australian shipbuilders, through Incat we are leading the way in terms of fast ferry technology. Incat has just delivered its 27th fast ferry to Europe. Indeed, it has built almost 50 per cent of the high-speed passenger ferries operating around the world. It employs almost 1,000 Tasmanians. Its export value last year was around $212 million. It is very important to us; it is the state's largest employer. That is why we, as Labor senators and as opposition members, have fought very hard for the retention of this bounty.As Senator Murray said, it was always the intention—and the intention of Labor in government as well—that the bounty continue until the OECD agreement was ratified. That is the very important point. I think it is worth noting that since the coalition won government there has actually been a decline in the number of developments in terms of shipbuilding. The government now have a proposal not only to phase out the bounty but also to link it to research and development, which will lead to a significant decline in the amount of money the shipbuilders will actually get. That is having an impact.I agree with Senator Murray that we should be endeavouring to improve this bounty while supporting the maintenance of it. In the face of the types of assistance that are being paid to European shipbuilders, we should not be proposing a further decline in the bounty. We must maintain this very important industry. I know that a lot of it is in my state, but it is important. We should ensure that we maintain a shipbuilding industry in this country by making sure that there is, to at least some degree, a level playing field.As I said, there has been some decline in shipbuilding but the money that was earned for this country in export dollars was almost $1 billion—it was $926 million—in the last financial year. This bill proposes to introduce what is known as the SIS which will see the bounty being paid on eligible research and development expenditure at a rate of 50 per cent for innovation expenditure, up to a total of two per cent of the eligible construction costs of a bountiable vessel. That is a significant decline compared with where we were with regard to five per cent—or, indeed, I think it is only going to be three per cent through to June 1999.I was able to obtain some information from the Australian Shipbuilders Association that shows the investment decline that has occurred since 1996 under the coalition government. That is a very sad thing, and it is something we should look at very seriously with a view to turning it around. Like other senators, I do welcome the fact that we at least have got some half-hearted attempt to continue this bounty. I just wish that the government could see its way clear to actually improving it and enhancing the opportunities, or at least making sure that some degree of level playing field continues, for Australian shipbuilders in this country.13:05:003270Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Like my colleagues from the Labor Party and Senator Murray, we rise to support the Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 , though we do not think it goes any where near far enough in having any vision for the future of shipbuilding in this country. As my other colleagues and Senator Murray have said, if it was not for the very active campaign the Labor Party and the Democrats carried out in 1996 there would be no ship bounty. The ship industry—especially fast ships—as we know it in Australia would have probably been destroyed or reduced to an inconsequential level by a bumbling, incompetent government in 1996 who did not understand the needs of the shipbuilding industry. At the time, the Australian Shipbuilders Association expressed their horror at the way they were being treated by a government that did not have any understanding.In government—and I was the minister responsible for shipbuilding for two years in the Keating government—we made it clear that we would agree to phase out the bounty once everybody else in the OECD had signed off on getting rid of all their subsidies so that there would be a so-called level playing field. This government wanted to get rid of the ship bounty without the commitment from other countries. We would have been shooting off one leg—not just a foot but a whole leg and half of the body—of the Australian shipbuilding industry by that naive attitude taken by the then minister, Mr Moore. What we have to understand is not just the bounties and tariffs that other countries have to assist their shipbuilding; it is the non-tariff support mechanisms they put in place.I led a shipbuilding delegation to Japan in 1995 and discovered it was not an issue of bounties or tariffs that was making it difficult for our shipbuilders to sell fast ferries into Japan—even though they were better quality, cheaper and technologically more advanced than anything built in Japan—but that the Japanese bureaucracy were going to make it absolutely impossible to have any proper penetration of the Japanese market. That was made clear to us. Under licences and so-called safety regulations and design regulations, it was going to be impossible for us to sell into a market that potentially has the need for 3,000 ferries operating around the coast of Japan and the inland sea. It was clear to me that you would never remove our assistance until a market like Japan demonstrably and genuinely opened up its passenger ferry business to genuine competition.They told us, `You can actually, as a foreigner, apply to get concessional funding for a ferry that is going to be built overseas but purchased by a Japanese ferry operator.' It turned out that, no matter how many applications were put in, no-one ever got access to that money. Informally we were told that the bureaucrats made it clear: they saw it as their duty never to grant an overseas ferry builder access to those concessional funds. This was although it was said under the rules internationally, `This is open; this is transparent.' But the bureaucrat made sure you never got it.It was the same on design. I give this example: Austral Ships did crack one ferry sale in 1994-95 from Western Australia into Japan. They had to pay to have a Japanese safety expert from their marine department on the site in Western Australia, from the very first bolt or weld that was done until when the ship was delivered, so that all the so-called safety and design rules for Japan could be met under the so-called guarantee to consumers and ferry users in Japan that they were getting a safe ferry. It had already been demonstrated around the world that our ferries were the best, the safest, the most technologically advanced and the most comfortable for passengers. So that condition was met at considerable extra expense.When the ferry was about to be delivered to Japan, guess what happened? It had to be completely resurveyed before it went to Japan and when it got to Japan. This was an additional cost. After it was built there was a risk that a Japanese official could then say, `We find this unsafe. You can't deliver it to Japan.' This makes trying to get into the Japanese market a very risky business. These are the non-tariff measures that you have to beat in the shipbuilding industry worldwide. This is something that we understood. We were not going to remove the bounty until these things were opened up. When it was explained to the then Minister Moore, it was beyond his comprehension. I was very disappointed that a minister—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Most things were beyond his comprehension.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—He found out in industry policy that most things were always beyond his comprehension, unless you bought a share in a company that he was investing in or he had an interest in. Maybe if he had had shares in the Australian shipbuilding industry he might have shown more interest, Senator Campbell. That is the only interest Mr Moore ever had in industry policy.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That is an imputation on a very fine Australian, a member of parliament and a member of this government. It must be withdrawn. Your suggestion that he would only favour things in which he had—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Address your remarks to the chair, Senator Macdonald.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I am helping you as well, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you were doing other things.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Sit down.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Conroy.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—On the point of order—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Can I at least finish? Senator Schacht made the comment that Mr Moore would only fund things in which he had shares. That is an outrageous imputation on Mr Moore.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The only way I can think of that maybe we could interest Mr Moore in being involved in industry policy is through companies that he had his own share investments in.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, resume your seat. I think that that does indicate an imputation on a member and I would ask you to withdraw.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Under your guidance, Mr Acting Deputy President, I withdraw. But I am certainly not going to withdraw the suggestion that the minister was incompetent about developing appropriate industry policy for Australian shipbuilding. You have only to ask the Australian Shipbuilders Association of the time, in 1996, and they would publicly express that view. They did express that view. They were appalled at the minister's lack of knowledge of and support for their industry.I come to the point, as I conclude, that on the matter of the shipbuilding industry it is stupid for any government to say unilaterally, `We will withdraw bounties and support for the shipbuilding industry of Australia as an example to the rest of the world,' because the rest of the world will not follow. They will clean us up. In the example I gave, as a minister leading a shipbuilding delegation to Japan, it was clear to me that there are 50 other devices countries will use to stop us getting into their markets and to protect their own. Until all of those non-tariff, non-bounty issues are dealt with, Australia must continue to support industry through bounties and to have an active interventionist government willing to do its bit to support this industry that employs several thousand people and earns, as Senator Hogg said, close to $1 billion a year in export earnings.Unfortunately, this government has never woken up to the fact that if you want to get the current account deficit down in this country on the trade side, you have to support high value added industry such as our shipbuilding industry. You do so by having appropriate bounties and active support. Though we support this bill, it is a sorry state of affairs that this industry was nearly put through the floor by the stupidity of Mr Moore and his government only two or three years ago.13:14:003272Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was not intending to speak, but I will speak very briefly. I would just like to indicate that I am surprised that Senator Schacht did not choke on the hypocrisy of what he just said in relation to what they did as a government in setting up Australia's response to the Uruguay Round of GATT. I cannot remember the number of times I came into this chamber and said, `It's a bit dumb and a bit naive for Australia to assume that we can just get rid of tariffs and bounties and assume that the rest of the world will follow.' I said it again and again, and I was asked if I believed in free trade.The reality is that the previous Labor government set up Australia's response to the Uruguay Round of GATT and set up the Button plan in relation to car industries. Even worse was the Button plan in relation to the textiles, clothing and footwear industries whereby the Labor government assumed it could fling off tariffs at a much greater rate before they even knew what was required under the Uruguay Round of GATT on the assumption that everyone else would be so impressed by Australia, they would all follow.Senator Schacht interjecting—DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—It was a nonsense then and, I agree with Senator Schacht, it is a nonsense now. I am pleased to see that the Labor Party have seen the light on the way to Damascus, but I wish it had been a lot earlier.13:15:003273Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution, and in order to facilitate the debate in the Senate I will not go over the issues that have been raised.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills3273r6733273Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:17:003273Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to make a number of comments in relation to the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 and to indicate that the Labor Party supports the bill. The bill arose out of a number of issues raised by Labor Party senators in Senate estimates over the past 12 to 18 months. They drew attention to the fact that a number of companies had been serious ly disadvantaged by the rigid application of the then terms of the bill to a number of companies. One stark example that we had before us was a particular company which had sent its application for a tax concession to the tax office and that application laid in the tax office for four or five months before it was discovered and passed on to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, as it then was. These types of absurdities, at the end of the day, prevented six companies from being considered for the tax concession by the Industrial Research and Development Board. I welcome this bill and the fact that these companies will now be able to have their applications considered by the board. I just hope that the proposals from these companies are still around and that they warrant consideration and the granting by the board of their concessions.I also draw attention to the comments in the explanatory memorandum. In the first paragraph it says that the bill is aimed at reducing the compliance cost for companies. When I was travelling around the country over the past six months or so for a Senate inquiry, the question of the R&D START program was raised on a number of occasions by representatives of some companies who gave evidence to the inquiry. They said that they had not bothered applying for R&D under the current program because of the rigid, restrictive and very complex administrative provisions that are applied to that program. So, hopefully, the reduction of the compliance cost for companies will open up the opportunity, particularly for small companies, to get access to R&D, because R&D is a critical issue in terms of the development of our industrial base.We have been trying to promote innovation amongst Australian companies for a considerable time. Over the years, there have been a variety of programs put in place by various successive governments to try to encourage investment in R&D by Australian companies. The reality is that, in the last financial year, we have seen our expenditure on the R&D START program underspent by $50 million. We have also seen that, in terms of the ABS statistics for the year 1996-97, business expenditure on research and development fell by five per cent on the previous year.Whilst we advocate and praise and encourage innovation, what we are seeing is a fall off in the overall expenditure in R&D by companies in this country. It was argued at the last Senate estimates committee hearing that this was partly because of the huge blow-out that occurred under the scheme introduced by the previous government. This indicates a change in the level of out-take was taking place. I suppose we will have to wait and see at the outcome of the budget whether or not that is factual or whether there is a continuing trend in the reduction of expenditure on R&D in this country. There is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence around to suggest that companies are not spending anywhere near what they were previously on R&D programs within their corporations. It is a continuing concern to ensure that we are continuously monitoring what is occurring in that area and have the continuous ability to finetune government programs to ensure that R&D expenditure is maximised on behalf of companies in this country and, more importantly, to ensure that we get the sorts of innovations and developments that will allow our industries to grow and to be competitive and successful in the international marketplace.The second issue I want to briefly address is R&D funds themselves. As a result of the Ralph review of business taxation, there has been a lot of speculation in the media in the past two or three weeks that R&D expenditure could be traded off against a 30 per cent company tax. It has been mentioned in a number of articles in newspapers in recent weeks. One in particular was in the Australian Financial Review of 22 March 1999 and it said:Mr Ralph said the R&D incentive, which allows companies to claim 125 per cent of their R&D expenditure as a tax deduction, could be sacrificed along with accelerated depreciation."It's certainly part of the tax incentives and it could go either way," Mr Ralph said at a public seminar in Sydney on Friday.I want to raise that issue, because I attended the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association dinner last night at which the minister for industry was the guest speaker. I understood him to say that that was off the agenda and that there would be no trade-off of R&D expenditure in respect of anything that comes out of the Ralph review of business taxation. I wanted to put that on the record because, if that is not what the minister said, if that is the wrong interpretation of what he said, I invite him to come into this chamber and tell the Australian people that that is the case.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Or tell Mr Costello.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Or tell Mr Costello. I certainly understood him to say and to make it clear that that was not on the agenda, that there would be no trade-off of funds available for R&D investment expenditure against a lower company tax rate. If that is the case, I think we have to welcome that statement.As I said in my initial remarks, this bill that we have before us is supported by the Australian Labor Party. It does address what were very blatant administrative restrictions in the bill that worked to the disadvantage of a number of companies. Hopefully, the bill will now institute provisions that will allow those companies applications to be properly addressed by the IR&D board. As I said, hopefully those companies are still around and will be able to take advantage of the new provisions that will be provided for by this amendment bill.13:25:003274Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Democrats will support the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 but we, too, wish to use this opportunity to briefly make some remarks about research and development. As I have already mentioned, 1996 was a very stupid year for industry policy, and research and development was particularly targeted in that era of stupidity. I recall in an estimates session asking the secretary concerned whether they had done a cost-benefit analysis as to what the effect of their changes to research and development would be. The answer was that no, they had not. So I asked, `When would you expect to see what the effects of those changes would be?' and the answer was, `In about three years time.'Here we are, three years later, and the effect of that stupid policy decision is that our research and development has declined. Our world ranking position within the OECD has dropped. It never was all that high, I might say, but under the policies that were prevailing at the time it was being lifted and it was improving, and we were going up the rankings, which is where we should be as a country.What they have done is reverse a progressive direction which was in the interest of Australia and I, for one, regret that enormously. One of the major issues at that time was reducing a general industry facilitator, which was the R&D tax concession, from 150 per cent to 125 per cent, and they took that action without regard to the consequences. I asked the question, `Have you done a cost benefit analysis?' They said, `No, we just know how much it costs us, and this is how much we are going to take out of the budget.' But they had absolutely no idea about how much it actually gives back to the community, to industry, to the economy, to the wealth of Australia and to jobs. We had an idea, and we were right because three years later we can see the figures. There is a clear lesson that when you combine ideology with inexperience and rank obstinate stupidity, the consequences for people are the loss of jobs, the loss of competitiveness and the loss of a market position for the manufacturing industry, in particular, which is to be greatly regretted.Having got that off my chest, let me return to the bill at hand. The people who write to parliamentarians play a great role in provoking thought on issues to which we might not otherwise be alerted. All senators know that the number of representations you get can encourage you to decide whether a bill is non-controversial or not. We were undecided on this bill. We did, in fact, get only one communication that I can recall, and in the end we were undecided about that communication. But I want to put it on record—I notice that the advisers to the minister are present, and they should pay heed to it—because, if this person was right, it needs to be corrected; if they were not right, then it does not need to be corrected, but we will keep an eye on it.I will give you a summary of what was said. They said that the apparently innocent provision—which is actually item 22—of the Industry Research and Development Board in relation to the exploitation of the results of R&D projects could have serious ramifications. They state:Previously, the Board had the power to issue certificates stating that the results of R&D activities had been exploited `otherwise than in a manner that is for the benefit of the Australian economy'. As would be expected, the effect of such a certificate is to disallow all claims for the R&D activities, whether undertaken before or after the certificate is issued. Clause 22 of the bill will add to this power by allowing the Board to issue the certificate if:"It would have been reasonable to expect that there has been some exploitation, after the commencement of this paragraph, of the results of those research and development activities but no such exploitation has occurred."They go on:There are two major problems with this.1. It is effectively retrospective because it applies to R&D projects which may have started a number of years ago under a different set of rules. The only time limit is that the reasonable expectation must arise after the Bill is passed—the power is not restricted to activities which commence after the Bill is passed.It is very clear that this provision is aimed squarely at R&D syndicates. Whatever your view may be on syndicate investors, they should be entitled to have their R&D projects reviewed under the provisions that were in effect when the syndicate transactions were entered into.2. The second problem is that the provision is not restricted to syndicates. It is a broadly stated, discretionary power that strikes at the market driven nature of the concession. The IR&D Board will have the power to second-guess companies about whether particular results should be exploited, and how and when they should be exploited. It will be the board that determines if the R&D is successful, when it is reasonable to expect exploitation, and to some extent what form of exploitation is sufficient.Many companies conduct a range of R&D activities with the same basic aim, and choose to exploit the one (if there is the one) which is the most successful and the most economically advantageous. This is something we should be encouraging, not discouraging.The proposed new provision can only add further uncertainty to the R&D tax concession. The existing power to disallow claims if the results have been exploited in a manner that is not to the benefit of the Australian economy is more than adequate and should not be extended in a manner that gives the Board power to dictate to companies what they should do with R&D results.I have deliberately read that to you as they presented it to me, because it appeared to be a fairly cogent expression of their opinion. I will say, particularly to the advisers to the minister, that, frankly, the Australian Democrats were undecided about this and whether there was a real issue to hand, and I would appreciate it from our side if you could keep an eye on it and advise us in due course if in fact these kinds of problems emerge—and you would obviously do that through your representative minister. Accordingly, the Australian Democrats will support the bill in full.13:32:003276Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition, as Senator George Campbell has already indicated, will support the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 , and we note that the Democrats are supporting it. The Senate should note the remarks of Senator Campbell and Senator Murray that, although we agree with this bill, we want to make comments on the very sorry saga that this government has put itself and Australian industry through over R&D since, as Senator Murray said, that terrible 1996 budget which slashed the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent.I remember John Button, the industry minister in the 1980s who introduced the policy of the Labor government to increase the tax concession for R&D to 150 per cent, telling me that he had to fight the bureaucratic opposition of Treasury and the Department of Finance and their acolytes spread throughout the bureaucracy—including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who were utterly opposed to any increase in a special tax deduction for R&D.He also said that, for every budget after he got it in, the 150 per cent tax deduction was the number one savings option on the hit list from Treasury and the Department of Finance. He said that, for every budget, he had to fight in cabinet against the Treasury bureaucracy's view that this had to be defeated, because Treasury hated it—they hated it with a passion.I notice that our bumbling Prime Minister in his preamble—or whatever you want to call it—actually mentioned that we should be free of ideology. I wish he would tell the Department of the Treasury to get rid of their ideological obsessions, where they want to impose their view about how the finances and the economy in Australia should run. They are as ideologically obsessed as any group of people in Australia.Of course, when the new government came in, bingo, they had a new inexperienced Treasurer and a new inexperienced industry minister. It was a case of, `Minister, we have got to make savings.' They said, `We have to get rid of this rort'—as they called it—`this tax deduction of 150 per cent. It is being rorted. There are people out there who are abusing it, and it is not creating any impetus for Australian industry.' Mr Costello and the industry minister fell for the three-card trick and dropped it to 125 per cent. I understand that at one stage it was probably going to be knocked off completely, but someone had enough sense to say that that might be bit much. Industry complained bitterly when they got whiff of it, so it went to 125 per cent.I have no doubt that, in the budget coming up in a month's time—in the first year of a new government after it has been re-elected—Treasury will put up as a savings option to the government knocking off the remaining 125 per cent of the tax deduction. It will be on their hit list and I trust the new industry minister, Mr Minchin, is already defending the minimum of 125 per cent.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Senator Minchin.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Minchin. I trust that he is using his influence with the Prime Minister to make sure that there is no further reduction.Why do we need a concession to encourage R&D? It is very simple. We have a trade deficit running into, on average, between $20 billion and $30 billion a year because we do not export enough high value added manufactures and services from Australia. We manufacture low value added commodities.All the countries of the Western world of any consequence in the OECD have trade surplus because they export high value added manufactures and services. That is the lesson. And how do they develop high value added manufactures and services? They have an absolute commitment to put R&D up front, both in the public and the private sector. They realise that, out of that R&D, you get the innovation, the ideas and the new products that the rest of the world is willing to buy at a very high price because they are the best products available.But, no, not our Treasury; they never accept this view—not our Treasury officials and not our finance department officials. If they get the ear of their minister, they all call it a rort. They do not call it a rort in Japan. They do not call it a rort in West Germany, in France, in Great Britain or even in the United States of America. They see this as a legitimate approach to encourage innovative R&D in their countries. We would hope that in this coming battle—as I suspect it will be—the Treasury again hopefully will be defeated. We encourage Senator Minchin and other ministers to look at actually increasing the R&D tax concession back to the 150 per cent to reverse the trend that Senator Murray has outlined.We support this bill as an improvement in administration. We think it is quite reasonable. But the real issue we want to talk about is why we need to have decent R&D policy in Australia for the long-term future of this country.13:38:003277Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The provisions of the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill 1998 amend the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 in a manner identified in the government's industry statement Investing for Growth of December 1997. As has been outlined, they are designed mainly to streamline the administration of the research and development tax concession scheme. It also contains a range of other measures aimed at improving the administration of the R&D tax concession scheme consistent with improving its integrity and efficacy and some measures to improve the effectiveness of IR&D Board activities. I commend the bill to the Senate and thank honourable senators for their contributions.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills3277r7203277Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.13:41:003277Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—The Airports Amendment Bill 1999 makes five changes to the Airports Act 1996. The opposition is relaxed about four of the changes proposed. However, we have an amendment to the fifth change that we understand the government will not oppose. There are some matters that do need to be put on the record, and I will be as brief as possible.The first change I wish to mention extends the regulatory mechanism for activities around airports to include non-structural activities that may intrude into airport operations. The existing mechanism is designed to ensure that developments around airports do not affect safety, efficiency or the regularity of aviation operations.The amendment provided by this bill will broaden the definition of controlled activities to include non-structural activities such as operating lights that are capable of interfering with aviation or operating equipment, or a facility which reflects light that may interfere with aviation; any activity resulting in air turbulence that could affect normal flight; and any activity emitting smoke, dust or gas that affects the ability of an aircraft operating under visual flight rules. The bill does not interfere with ordinary or domestic activities. It also gives the Commonwealth the power to make regulations setting out the standards for activities covered by the broadened definition.The second change I will cover, and which the Labor Party supports, clarifies the situation regarding the excision of land from an airport site. If excision takes place there will be no requirement to surrender the entire airport lease. Airport owners, we understand, have requested this amendment in order to allow the acquisition of minor parcels of land or the disposal of land on the boundaries of airports.The third change clarifies the act to make it clear that it does not apply to military air operations at airports that are jointly used by civil and military operators. The fourth change that Labor supports makes it clear that the granting of rights to use land on a leased property, such as an easement, does not constitute an acquisition of an airport lease. Thus, the first amendment is a sensible broadening of the scope of the application of the act to ensure the maintenance of safety in aviation, and the next three are designed to clarify issues in the principal act.The fifth change relates to an extension of time for phase 2 airport owners to have access undertakings to airport services approved by the ACCC. The current act gives airport owners 12 months to negotiate access arrangements with airport users. The following services are covered: firstly, services that are necessary for the purposes of operating and/or maintaining civil aviation services at the airport; secondly, services provided by means of significant facilities at the airport, being facilities that cannot be economically duplicated.The ACCC has identified the following groups of services that meet both these criteria. They are: airport facilities, including aircraft movement, areas such as runways, taxiways, aircraft parking areas, safety devices, lighting and vehicle access to these facilities; passenger processing areas, including departure and holding lounges, immigration and customs service areas, check-in desks and baggage handling; sites for providing refuelling facilities; ground service and freight equipment storage sites; light and emergency maintenance facilities; and land side vehicle access but not car rental facilities or car parks. The ACCC said it was unlikely the following services met both criteria: administrative office space; flight catering facilities; commercial and retail facilities; cargo terminal facilities; waste disposal facilities; and heavy and planned maintenance facilities.Airport operators can submit access undertakings for qualifying services to the ACCC. This must specify the terms on which airport services will be made available to airlines and other users of airport services, or the undertaking must establish a process for negotiation of terms and conditions to access including dispute resolution procedures. The ACCC is required to conduct public consultation before the undertakings for access are approved.The aim of this mechanism is apparently to:provide a means by which the owner or operator of a facility can obtain certainty about access arrangements before a third party seeks access.That is from the second reading speech accompanying the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995. If the ACCC has not approved an undertaking within the time period of 12 months, a ministerial determination is made that subsection 192(2) of the Airports Act applies at the airport. When the act is declared to apply, any airport service for which an access undertaking has not been approved by the ACCC will be declared for the purposes of part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The latter act provides a comprehensive access regime.Under the Trade Practices Act, current airport users and potential airport users have the right to negotiate terms and conditions of access with the airport operator first and, if negotiations prove to be unsuccessful, there is the opportunity for the matter to be arbitrated by the ACCC. Aircraft owners prefer access undertakings to declared services because undertakings set out the `generic' basis for provision of services, whereas declared services give airport users the right to request and negotiate specific terms and conditions of access and have disputes arbitrated by the ACCC. As I indicated, the current act gives airport owners the time period of 12 months. In the bill we have before us, it is proposed that this time be extended to 24 months.The opposition does not agree to the government's original proposal to grant all airport owners a 12-month extension. Therefore, we oppose schedule 1, item 1, page 3, lines 5 and 6, and schedule 1, item 17, page 7, lines 6 and 7. We also propose that at schedule 1, item 18, lines 8 and 9 be omitted and the words as circulated in the chamber be substituted. The effect of this amendment will be that airport owners can seek a one-off 12-month extension of the period during which an access undertaking may be lodged with the ACCC by applying to the ACCC for such an extension. This is a more satisfactory method, in our view, of dealing with the issues before us. We believe that airport owners should apply and justify their application rather than simply benefit from a blanket extension. The amendment is a reasonable compromise for the interests of both owners and users.I would like to thank the government and the other parties for their support of this amendment and for recognising that the blanket extension was not the best path to go down. I commend the amendments to the Senate and, given my understanding that they will be passed, I commend the amended bill to the Senate.13:47:003279Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I simply record, on behalf of Senator Woodley, the transport spokesperson, that the Australian Democrats support the Labor amendments.13:47:003279Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am pleased that both the opposition and the Democrats support the bill. We do, as Senator Mackay has indicated, accept the amendment from the Labor Party to be dealt with in the committee stage. Senator Mackay has adequately summarised the bill and I will not repeat that. I conclude by thanking the contributors to the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3279The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 1 and item 17, stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Amendment (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:18 Subsection 192(5) (definition of designated period)Repeal the definition, substitute:designated period , in relation to a core regulated airport, means: (a) the 12-month period beginning at whichever of the following times is applicable: (i) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 21 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 to a company—the sale time for that company (within the meaning of that Act); (ii) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 22 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996—the time of the grant of that lease; or (b) if the ACCC, by written determination, specifies a longer period in respect of the airport—that longer period.18A At the end of section 192Add:(6) The period specified in respect of an airport in a determination under paragraph (b) of the definition of designated period in subsection (5) must not be longer than the 24-month period beginning at whichever of the following times is applicable: (a) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 21 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 to a company—the sale time for that company (within the meaning of that Act); (b) if, at any time, an airport lease for the airport was granted under section 22 of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996—the time of the grant of that lease.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.3279Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald) read a third time.Bills3280r7273280Debate resumed.13:49:003280Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of the opposition I wish to indicate our support for the Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . We welcome the bill and the many beneficial measures that are contained in it. Carers provide an unstinting and highly valuable role in our society, often at great personal and economic cost. It is important that the parliament and Australia generally recognises their contribution and provides as much assistance as we can to their efforts. It has been estimated that up to $16 billion is saved per year by the unfunded efforts of carers.Madam Acting Deputy President, I am not keen to hold up this bill. I am very keen for it to be passed today. But I do want to put on record our concern that the adult disability assessment tool that is at the centre of a lot of the measures contained in the bill is not yet available. The opposition is concerned that we have not been able to see that assessment tool. As Mr Swan, the member for Lilley, made the point in the House of Representatives the other day, we are quite nervous about agreeing to this bill without the ability to assess that assessment tool.We do, however, understand it is a disallowable instrument but, of course, that is a very blunt measure for the Senate to use to respond to concerns about an issue such as this. We would urge the government to ensure that there is proper consultation and negotiation with interested parties before that adult disability assessment tool is finalised, so that we are not faced with a disallowance type debate in the Senate, but rather we have a tool that, I think, everyone can agree to support.Our concern about this is based on the growing concern about the child disability assessment tool, particularly in its treatment of cystic fibrosis sufferers. I do not want to delay the Senate but I congratulate Mr Sid Sidebottom, the member for Braddon, for his advocacy on behalf of these groups and note that the opposition will continue to advocate their concerns with that particular assessment tool.I would like to have had more time today, but I think it is important that we carry the bill. So I will conclude my remarks and indicate that we will be supporting the bill.13:52:003280Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Likewise I will attempt to keep my comments brief and the brevity of them in no way reflects on the importance of this matter. The Democrats believe that the role of carers is an essential one in the Australian community, both in a social sense, of course, and in an economic sense.As Senator Evans indicated, carers save the taxpayer an enormous amount of money in performing a role that would otherwise have to be performed by organisations in a more commercial sense—whether that is government organisations or private organisations—and almost inevitably involving significant extra government expense as opposed to the cost of caring for people usually in the home. For that, as well, of course, for the social role that they play, carers need to be acknowledged in very positive terms.The Democrats also share similar concerns to those expressed by the previous speaker in terms of the non-finalisation of the adult disability assessment tool. It is a problem that unfortunately does arise not infrequently. Legislation which has a delegated instrument hanging off it that is not available at the time the legislation is passed, in effect means that the parliament is, to a degree, passing legislation that it is not able to ascertain the full impact of. That obviously is not an ideal situation. Delegated legislation and disallowable instruments are fairly blunt instruments in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment and are, of course, becoming far more frequent these days than they used to be. Nonetheless, we do recognise that overall the bill will be introducing a number of positive measures and obviously we will be looking at the disability assessment tool closely when it does become available.I would like to mention another issue briefly. My understanding is that one of the other amendments that this act makes will impact on a small number of parenting payment recipients and prevent a sole parent from qualifying for a parenting payment on the basis that they are receiving a child disability allowance for a child who is over 16 years of age.That will obviously impact on some people who will have to apply for a different payment such as the Newstart allowance, which is paid at a lower rate and has a tighter income and assets test. Whilst we would not want to hold up the bill solely because of that measure, I do express the Democrats' concern about the impact that that will have. I think it is an example of the growing problem of the increasing gap between the level of payment for allowances and the level of payment available to pensions—not just the payment level but also the various conditions, income tests, et cetera, that attach to it.The gap is there and it is potentially getting worse. The old rationale for the differentiation between pensions and allowances—or what used to be called benefits—that one was a permanent payment and the other was a temporary one we would all acknowledge has become much less clear in recent times, with long-term employment rates being much higher than any of us would like as well as people being on other allowances potentially for longer periods of time. That gap between pension levels and allowance levels is one that the Democrats believe does need closer attention, not just at payment levels but perhaps even more importantly in terms of income test changes, taper rates, et cetera.I do express our concern about that. I am not sure precisely how many people will be affected by that measure, but obviously any measure that does potentially impact on people's basic level of income support is one that the Democrats are concerned about. Nonetheless, as I said, it is broadly a positive bill and it would be desirable to ensure that the positive measures contained within it are put through. I shall cease my remarks there.13:57:003281Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The Assistance for Carers Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers, including the measures announced in the government's April 1998 staying at home package. Senator Evans raised the issue of the adult disability tool, and I have been advised that the development of that tool has been discussed very broadly with the shadow minister and other senators who have been interested. But I have also been advised that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel will not accept orders for the drafting of the tool until the passage of this bill. I have been advised that Senator Newman has made a commitment that after a year of operation that tool will be reviewed.Regarding the other issue that Senator Bartlett raised, there is a small group of single parents who can qualify for parenting payment on the basis of having a student CDA child. This is a very small group, and it is expected that most of them will be transferred to more appropriate payments by 1 July 1999. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Questions Without Notice328132813281Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Can the Assistant Treasurer explain the apparent inconsistency between the government's claims that the banking and finance industry will save $1.6 billion per year due to the GST and the comments on 12 March by the new Managing Director of the NAB, Mr Cicutto, that the GST will increase the bank's tax rate by eight to 10 per cent or more than $80 million?3281Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I point out to the Senate that the financial services and banking sector, along with all other sectors of the Australian economy, will certainly benefit from tax reform. One of the reasons they are going to benefit is the increase in disposable incomes that we wish to provide all taxpayers. You would be aware there are very substantial tax cuts in our tax package.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They are going to your rich mates.WW4Senator KEMP—A typical family, Senator Conroy, may well benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week, which is what we wish to deliver—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections in the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. We are seeking to provide taxpayers with arguably the largest tax cuts in Australian political history.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why are you getting $80 per week?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, cease shouting!WW4Senator KEMP—As I said, the typical family may well benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week. We estimate that the banking sector will benefit from tax reform. The Treasury has estimated that with the introduction of a new tax system costs to the banking and financial sector will fall by some $1.6 billion. The banking sector alone is estimated to have a cost reduction in the order of $670 million in the year 2000-01.It is also important to note that the removal of embedded taxes such as the wholesale sales tax on intermediate purchases will be one of the ways in which costs to the industry will be cut back. We are confident that the benefits which we are going to deliver to the banking sector and to the Australian economy in general will be to their benefit.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Not one bank believes you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you have been persistently interjecting since this answer started. I draw your attention to the wording of the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. My advice to Labor senators is this: start listening to Bob Hogg and pass our legislation to make typical Australian families $40 to $50 a week better off. Pass our legislation to give pensioners guaranteed real rises in pensions. Pass our legislation to give people savings bonuses. Pass our legislation to help ease poverty traps. Pass the legislation which we are going to present to this Senate to fix federal-state financial relations and to secure a future for our hospitals and schools. All I can say in conclusion is: pass the legislation so that we can fix an inefficient, broken down tax system, to the benefit of the Australian economy and the Australian people.3282Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. By way of answer, the Assistant Treasurer merely confirmed the figure I gave him about government's claims and failed to address one word to the question. Have another shot, Assistant Treasurer. If the NAB attempts to pass on these increased costs to consumers, will the government request the ACCC to take action against the NAB? Is it not the case that this is exactly what the Treasurer has threatened to do to insurance companies which raise premiums to try to recover the $2.5 billion they will lose as a result of your government's bungling of how the GST will apply to insurance contracts?3282Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The greatest bungle that I can think of is the fact that Labor were in office for 13 years and failed to do anything to fix our broken down tax system. That is the greatest bungle of all time, to be quite frank.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not true, and you know it.WW4Senator KEMP—That is absolutely true, Senator Cook. You are getting excited again. As I said, we believe the banking sector will certainly benefit from the package of measures that we will put in place. Let me make the point that any group in the community which tries to exploit changes can be reported to the ACCC, which will have the powers to take action.32823282O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Minister, under the coalition government's plans for a new tax system, Australian taxpayers will receive $13 billion in personal income tax cuts. My question is, however: is the minister aware of any threats to the efficiency of the new tax system? If so, can the minister advise the Senate what impact this will have on both Australian taxpayers and Australian businesses?3283Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for the question. It is true that the new tax system that we are seeking to introduce in this country will give back to Australian taxpayers $13 billion in taxation reductions, and it is not surprising that the Labor Party opposes tax cuts of $13 billion to the Australian people. Why is it not surprising? Because they have form on this issue. Labor stands for high taxes; the coalition stands for lower taxes. Labor in government promises tax cuts but does not deliver. No Australian will forget what happened to the l-a-w tax cuts promised by the Labor government. They were never delivered. So it is not surprising that Labor opposes the coalition's $13 billion of tax cuts because, when in government, although they promised tax cuts, they never delivered.As well as giving back so much money to Australian taxpayers, there are other benefits in the new taxation system when it is introduced, and it is worth reminding the Australian people of those benefits. The abolition of nine state taxes and charges will be welcomed by everyone. The fact that the states will receive the GST so that they can properly and adequately pay for their service responsibilities is welcomed not only by the states but also by the recipients of those benefits. The fact that all exports will be GST free will mean a major boost to exporters—and that has to be a benefit to all Australians.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Nonsense. You don't understand basic economics.BH4Senator HILL—If businesses grow, they provide more jobs, Senator Cook, and that is a benefit to all Australians. Cheaper transport of goods must be a benefit within rural and regional Australia and must help businesses in rural and regional Australia, and a 30 per cent personal income tax rate for 80 per cent of all Australian taxpayers will be a wonderful achievement and widely applauded. So it is amazing that in those circumstances Labor opposes the new tax system, a new tax system that brings so many obvious benefits.But there are also other concerns, and the latest concern is the exemption of food and the consequence if food is taken out, as is being advocated by the Australian Democrats and presumably will in the end be supported by the ALP. I previously said that the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants believes that such a move would add at least $100 million to compliance costs. It would hit small business hardest.Now we have the Commissioner of Taxation, Michael Carmody, as the latest to voice his concerns on the exclusion of food from the GST. He labelled it a `recipe for disputes'. He estimates that up to 370,000 businesses would be affected by the move to exempt food, potentially sidetracked by expensive and time consuming attempts to determine which food is subject to GST and which is not. In Mr Carmody's words:Any attempt to draw a line around food will lead to costly disputation and greatly increased costs for the community in administering the GST.Mr Carmody uses one of the absurdities of the current system to warn against the dangers of exempting food from the GST. He said it took five years of legal action and court battles to determine that frozen yoghurt is tax free under the current tax system, but frozen yoghurt that tastes like ice-cream is taxable. Those absurdities must be avoided and the costs associated with them. (Time expired)3283O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note with interest Mr Carmody's comments on the absurdity of the taxation of frozen yoghurt in Australia. Did he have any comments to make on equivalent tax regimes overseas, for example, where some food is GST free and some food is taxed?3283Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As a matter of interest he did, because he saw how it is being applied overseas and pointed out the dangers of going down the same path in this country. That is why he would argue that food should be included. In the UK, for example, he said a meat pie sold in a bakery before 3 p.m. is taxable as a snack food but, if it is sold after 3 p.m., it becomes a grocery and is therefore tax free. It is that sort of nonsense that the Australian Democrats wish to impose upon this major taxation reform that has been proposed by the Howard government.If we can have this package in full we can bring in all the benefits that I have detailed: $13 billion of tax cuts, adequate finance for the states to meet their service requirements, a new boost to export business to grow and to employ Australians—all of those benefits that can only be of benefit to all Australians and which they can get so easily if only the ALP will vote for the new system.32843284Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware that the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 , expected to be debated by the House next week, could allow subversion of the four pillars bank policy?3284Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, our policy on the four pillars is well known. It has been stated many times in this chamber. You have, in fact, asked me a question on it at least four or five times, I would think, and each time you got the same answer. I give you the same answer today: don't you worry about the four pillars policy.3284Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, under the transfer of business mechanism proposed by the bill, isn't it technically possible to transfer assets and liabilities between approved deposit taking institutions, including the four major banks, without altering the shareholdings of those institutions, potentially avoiding the need for the Treasurer to consent to the transfer under any legislation at all?3284Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Who writes these questions, Senator? Our policy on the four pillars is very well known. It remains in place, and it will be enforced.32843284Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs. Minister, you would be aware of the national statistics from Crime Stoppers Australia that show disturbing differences in arrests and charging of suspects by state police following logged calls to their 1800 number. Can the minister explain these differences between the states?3284Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. I notice, just in passing, that senators opposite are not interested in New South Wales. They are certainly not interested in those people in New South Wales who have a growing apprehension in relation to crime. And that is understandable, given their earlier predispositions.Crime Stoppers Australia recently wrote to me with a proposal to fight drug crime. They were kind enough to enclose some comprehensive statistics on their operations. This group is an independently operated service that provides valuable information to police through a 1800 number. They have 900 programs operating in 20 countries and they were established in Australia in 1987. At the 1988 conference of Crime Stoppers worldwide, Australian programs won 17 awards, confirming their high international standing.As a matter of interest, in 1997-98, there were 8,122 charges filed around Australia from about 35,000 reports. Of those, 23 per cent of all reports nationally ended in charges being laid—as a national average. In my own state it was only 18 per cent, in Western Australia it was only 17 per cent, in Queensland 37 per cent of calls resulted in charges, in Victoria it was 32 per cent, but in New South Wales only seven per cent resulted in charges being laid.I do not know what they are doing in New South Wales, but they are not taking much notice of Crime Stoppers and they are not charging the same percentage of people as a consequence of the calls to these people. Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. I imagine for anybody trying to listen on radio or television it would be almost impossible to hear.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Madam President. Only 343 charges were laid in New South Wales, with a measly 127 arrests. Even in my own home state of South Australia—which is about a quarter the size and has one- fifth of New South Wales's population—we recorded 773 arrests. That is just ridiculous when there were only 127 in New South Wales.These statistics coming from Crime Stoppers Australia, a well-respected independently operated group, confirm what the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence tells us, what the Australian Institute of Criminology tells us, what the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us, and what the Productivity Commission tells us—namely, that New South Wales has just dropped the ball with respect to law enforcement.Finally, Premier Carr challenged my assertion in relation to the amount of money they are spending on health and drugs. He is simply wrong. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia recently reported in Drugs, money and governments that New South Wales was spending only $41.15 million. For services for drug affected people that comes out in 1996 to $6.60 per head in New South Wales, $74 in the Territory, $7 in South Australia, $10 in Western Australia and $5 in other states. New South Wales are spending only about $6 per head; they come about fifth or sixth. New South Wales is just not doing a good job on law and order.32853285Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Can the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, confirm that an income protection insurance policy will attract the GST? Is it also the case that payments made under an income protection policy to a registered individual such as a sole trader will also be subject to, and will be reduced by, a GST? Can the minister further confirm that the full amount of the income protection payments received by the individual will be subject to income tax, despite the fact that they will have received only ten-elevenths of the insurance payments?3285Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you to George Campbell for that question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator George Campbell.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator George Campbell has made a mark in this chamber, because he wrote an excellent article in a recent book which pointed out that real wages had fallen under the Labor Party. I did not agree with much else in the article but I thought that was a very important statement that Senator George Campbell made and drew to the public's attention.Senator, general insurance is subject to GST. It is not input taxed. GST is charged on the premiums. When an insurance company makes a payment under insurance contract the insured entity gives up the right to recover amounts from the insurance company. The insurance company can claim input tax credits on payouts, regardless of whether the entity is registered or unregistered.3285Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister failed to answer two-thirds of the question in respect to whether or not the GST will be payable on income protection policy amounts paid to a sole trader. Minister, won't the inclusion of the full amount of the insurance payments in a sole trader's taxable income mean that they will be paying income tax at their marginal tax rate on the GST component that has already been deducted from their income protection payments? Isn't this a tax on a tax? And what is the government planning to do about it?3285Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Campbell, I must say that you roam far and wide in your complaints. You asked me a question, and I gave you a full answer to your question. Generally, insurance is subject to GST, and the GST is charged on the premiums. The general rules which relate to GST apply. Senator, I do not see what your particular problem is.32853285Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer to the proposal to build an international nuclear waste dump in Australia. The minister has said on several occasions now that he has told Pangea, `No, the government will not be supporting an international high level nuclear waste dump in Australia.' But Pangea and British Nuclear Fuels do not seem to be listening. Is the minister aware that the company has started a work plan, has engaged consultants and is preparing its infrastructure plans; that the British government, via British Nuclear Fuels, has put $10 million into the project; that Senator Lightfoot has assured us that there is support within government for the proposal; and that now Mr Fischer thinks that he `may' have met with them informally? Isn't it clear that someone at federal government level is encouraging them, either formally or informally?3286Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—In a democracy such as ours, companies like Pangea are free to spend and waste as much money as they like in pursuing certain policy proposals. They would not be unique in that. All I can say is that the government's policy is absolutely clear: we do not support this proposal. So I do not care how much money, resources, time and effort that Pangea waste in their pursuit of this proposal; they will not change the government's mind.I note your reference to Senator Lightfoot. I should note—and I think it is worth the Senate noting—that there are several prominent Australians, most notably Sir Gustav Nossal, who have publicly expressed their support for such a proposal. People like Gus Nossal think that Australia should host an international nuclear waste repository. Senator Lightfoot is free to support the views of people like Gus Nossal, but that is not the government's position. The government does not support this proposal, and the position is final.3286Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I thank the minister for that assurance yet again. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister concerned that there may be a number of government ministers, either senators or members, who are indeed in touch with this company? Would you please check, looking at the time frame of the meetings that Pangea claims to have had, that ministers in the last Howard government were not meeting with this company and are not continuing, from their positions now on the backbench, to meet with this company—and, in particular, that they are not also meeting with British Nuclear Fuels or the British government regarding this project? Can you guarantee us that there are not ongoing discussions with any senators or members about this proposal?3286Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Democrat pursuit of this issue is becoming rather tiresome. I know the Democrats are desperate to find an issue to hook onto. They are wandering around—a bit lost, like the ALP—looking for issues to grab onto and they think that there is something here that they can make an issue of. I have said to you that no minister apart from Wilson Tuckey has met with Pangea. That is the end of the story, and I am not going to go on some witch-hunt.32863286Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, my question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, isn't it true that in New Zealand the introduction of a value added tax caused the cash economy in the new house construction industry to increase from an estimated 15 per cent to 40 per cent, while in Canada the cash economy in house building is estimated to have doubled in seven years? Can the minister explain why this will not happen in Australia, despite the predictions of the Housing Industry Association that it will?3286Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The senator will be well aware that there is a cash economy in Australia, and one of the ways to tackle the cash economy is to undertake major tax reform. That is precisely what this government has done. You would be aware that the Commissioner for Taxation has estimated that there will be a very substantial clawback from the cash economy.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp?WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I was just waiting for some silence so that I could respond to the question. You would be aware, Senator Bishop, that a significant clawback has been forecast by the Commissioner for Taxation from the cash economy as a result of the introduction of the GST. One of the reasons that there will be a significant clawback is the fact that it will be in the interests of companies to register for the GST. It will be in their interests because, unless they register and have an ABN, they will not be able to claim their input tax credits. That is one of the major incentives that we have, Senator. Another is that we brought in major reforms to the payment of provisional tax, and you would be aware of the better systems that are in place, including the issue of the Australian Business Number, which we think is a very important initiative and which, I might say, was adopted by the Labor Party in the policy that the Labor Party took to the last election. We believe that one of the ways to tackle the cash economy—it is one way, but not the sole one—is to undertake tax reform. You will find that the Commissioner for Taxation has estimated that there will be a very significant clawback from the cash economy as a result of our tax reforms.3287Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Housing Industry Association testified to the Senate GST inquiry that the GST would `give a fillip to the black economy' by encouraging builders to evade this new tax? Are they wrong?3287Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Yes, they are wrong.32873287Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. In relation to the announcement by Senator Tierney this morning that the Liberal Party, both state and federal, supports the proposed Kooragang Island international airport, how does this sit with the position of the New South Wales Liberal Party, whose spokesperson, Ms Ficarra, said that the coalition would never support that, that it is a very valuable site by diversity, that it is absolutely the wrong choice for a second airport and that they are directly opposed to it? Will the government be doing a thorough environmental impact statement that takes into account the feelings of the people of Newcastle before proceeding with the airport, which they have now backed? Secondly, regarding Bankstown airport and the announcement in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, will the government be undertaking a thoroughgoing environmental impact assessment and risk assessment for the people of that region before proceeding with the heavier traffic from—(Time expired)3287Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Madam President, I did not quite hear the last bit of Senator Brown's question. Can I have that again?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The time has expired for the asking of a question. You can deal with the matters that have been put to you.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am sorry, I did not hear the bit about Bankstown, so perhaps you can repeat that in the supplementary.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It can be a supplementary question, if Senator Brown wishes.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Madam President. In relation to Kooragang Island, I confess that I am not as familiar as perhaps I should be with the policies of the New South Wales Liberal Party. If Senator Tierney assures me that that is their policy, and the leader's policy, I am sure that would be the case because Senator Tierney would know the policies of the New South Wales Liberal Party.In relation to Senator Brown's question about whether we would conduct EISs, I make no comment on the government's view on that airport. As far as I am aware, and I will have to check with Mr Anderson, there has been no application made to the Commonwealth. I have, as I suspect many senators have, been approached by some of the proponents of that. I have been in Newcastle in recent times and, in the course of doing other things, I have had a look at that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You had better get on the phone to Remo Nogarotto and tell him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Faulkner!YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Certainly, with any major proposal that this government has any interest in, there would be the normal form of environmental studies done and those normal procedures would be followed.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Is it appropriate that, when you direct a remark to the Leader of the Opposition in the chamber, he should continue to display his back to you and give every appearance of totally ignoring your comment and treating it with utter disdain?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the Leader of the Opposition takes note of all matters that I draw to his attention. If I think he is not, that would be in breach of the standing orders.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I cannot add much further to what I have already said about Kooragang.3288Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How is it possible that the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services does not know that the Liberal Party, state and federal, supports the airport at Kooragang Island when Senator Tierney put that forward as a notice of motion this morning in this place? Is it the case that the federal Liberal Party has not endorsed the Kooragang Island airport proposal, as Senator Tierney maintains? My second question was about Bankstown airport and the upgrading for the Olympics announced in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, which is going to see it carrying heavier traffic and bigger aircraft. Will an environmental impact statement, a social impact statement and a safety impact statement be done? Will an assurance be given that after the Olympics the master plan for Bankstown airport will be abided by—in other words, there will be a return to current air traffic stipulations?(Time expired)Opposition senators interjecting—3288Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I accept the interjection. I wonder what the Labor Party's policy is on Kooragang. They have got no policies on anything else, whether it is in the Commonwealth parliament or in New South Wales.In relation to Bankstown, it is expected that Sydney airport will, under normal operating conditions, cope with all traffic at the time of the Sydney 2000 Olympics with the 80 movements per hour capacity cap and the existing curfew arrangements. Under federal legislation, a slot management system is in place at Sydney, with clearly established priorities for handling aircraft movements, and Airservices Australia are responsible. There is no intention to amend the slot system or flight paths for Sydney to shift traffic into Bankstown airport for the games. However, as part of good contingency planning, other airports such as Melbourne and Brisbane, and airports closer to Sydney, including Bankstown, may be used in extreme circumstances such as adverse weather conditions, if those conditions reduce runway capacity. (Time expired)32883288Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware of material prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria that contains examples of the unfair impact of a GST on senior citizens who rely heavily on council services, including a GST on the council community bus services to take the elderly to council neighbourhood centre meal services; a GST on council fitness classes at the council recreation centre; a GST on social activities at the senior citizens centre; a GST on the council lawn mowing service; and even a GST on council podiatry services? Minister, will you confirm that the government has deemed each of these rates-subsidised services provided by councils as commercial because a small fee is charged for them, and so each time an elderly person accesses a service they will have to pay a GST?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is unacceptable. Senator Collins has asked a question and I wish to call Senator Kemp to answer it. There should not be so much noise in the chamber.3288Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Madam President. You are quite right. There was an enormous amount of noise, and it is quite disgraceful actually. I wonder if the council pointed out that the age pension will be increased by four per cent up-front—a 1½ per cent guaranteed increase; that the income test free area will be increased by 2.5 per cent; that the income test for pension payments will be reduced to a 40 per cent taper instead of the existing 50 per cent taper; and that for those earning some private income there are income tax cuts. So there we are—I guess the council may not have pointed that out.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Four per cent on the pension. You couldn't get your toes cut too often on that.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Crowley sneered at a four per cent rise in the pension. Senator, you did not offer that. You offered nothing in the last election, Senator Crowley. You offered absolutely nothing to age pensioners, except you wanted to de-grandfather all their pre-1985 assets. That is what you wanted to do to age pensioners to make sure that they could be caught by the capital gains tax. That is what you did for pensioners in the last election.As Senator Macdonald—our very efficient and very popular minister for local government—has stated on many occasions, local governments will certainly benefit from tax reform and major cost reductions as they are able to claim their input tax credits. Can I say to you, in relation to the specifics of your question, that the GST rules are well known. Are they services which are commercial services?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Yes.WW4Senator KEMP—Well, each of those services would have to be looked at and examined, but the general rules and appropriate rules of the goods and services tax apply. But I make the point that there are very significant cost reductions for local councils in our tax reform package and, even more importantly, there are significant rises in pensions and benefits with a guaranteed one per cent real increase.3289Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Municipal Association of Victoria has said:The Council services that keep the elderly independent, healthy, active and out of institutions are the things that will now be taxed under a GST. The only services that will be exempt from the GST under the proposed legislation will be the bare minimum to keep the elderly alive.Minister, why does the government regard such activities as `commercial' if they are provided by local government for the benefit of the community and to meet a particular community need and are not provided for profit?3289Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What an incredible statement! All water and sewerage charges will be GST free, Senator. Don't you understand that? In your comments you wiped all those.The GST will apply to activities of local governments where they charge a fee for supplying goods or services. This is a part of the bill. We have stated that. As I have said, many of the costs to local councils will fall. We have provided a major compensation package to people on pensions and benefits, and I have already mentioned the substantial rises which we have promised in these areas. Overall, in our view, local councils will be the financial beneficiaries from reform in the taxation area.32893289Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to Senator John Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Our government has a strong record in achieving better health service outcomes for indigenous Australians when compared with the appalling record under Labor. What is our government doing to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people overcome drug and substance abuse?3289Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question. I want to congratulate Senator Ferris on the round table that she has had with two indigenous women's groups in South Australia recently. I would recommend that honourable senators read her adjournment speech last night—because there is a lot of misinformation in this area.There is no question that the appalling record of Labor over 13 years has culminated in the terrible situation that exists today in relation to the indigenous community. In particular Labor failed to tackle the root cause of the drugs problem. They applied bandaid after bandaid but failed to stop hard drugs getting into Australia and, more particularly, into the indigenous community. They failed indigenous people when it came to addressing the drugs problem.Today I am pleased to inform the Senate that funding of $4.6 million will be provided to indigenous organisations through the latest round of community grants under the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. This will bring the government's commitment to the fight against drugs among indigenous Australians to about $10 million in the past eight months. That funding is on top of the $1.9 billion that the government is spending this financial year on indigenous specific programs across all portfolios. That is the greatest sum of money per annum that has been spent in the history of this country.The Tough on Drugs funding will be used to fund 26 indigenous specific community organisations providing treatment, rehabilitation and support for indigenous Australians affected by drugs. The latest $4.6 million in grants will fund nine indigenous community organisations in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be able to access support from more than 140 community agencies around Australia with total funding of more than $50 million.One of the successful indigenous organisations to receive funding is the Aboriginal Medical Services Cooperative in Redfern, which will receive more than a million dollars for the expansion of an outpatient rehabilitation service in inner city Sydney. The funding will see the employment of case managers for a more intensive, culturally sensitive service, including relapse prevention and outreach support.Another recipient is the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council in South Australia, which will receive more than $855,000 to develop treatment strategies to reduce petrol sniffing and other drug use in remote Aboriginal communities. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress will receive almost $500,000 to operate a mobile youth outreach and counselling team in Alice Springs. These are examples of how the government is providing practical on-the-ground assistance in the fight against drugs.The coalition government's $290 million Tough on Drugs strategy is the largest single initiative ever undertaken in Australia to respond to the drug problem. We are working harder than ever to tackle the issue on all fronts. We are doing this in partnership with voluntary and community agencies, churches, schools, parents, health professionals, law enforcement officials and government. Many of the agencies receiving funding will use it to set up treatment and support services where gaps or special needs exist in local communities.The government is also providing $150 million to ensure law enforcement agencies are resourced to protect Australian borders and streets from the drug menace.A major education and community information program is being implemented with about $40 million committed to school and community education strategies. We are also extending help to those who need it with a $60 million commitment to treatment and rehabilitation to ensure those with drug problems or placed at risk are able to access treatment and support.In line with the government's overall approach to indigenous issues we are taking a practical and responsible approach to drug abuse.32903290O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, will the government be relying on legislative weapons to ensure that the black economy does not flourish under the GST? For instance, will it be relying on provisions such as section 8U of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, which makes it an offence to:. . . do or omit or do anything which facilitates the falsification or concealment of the identity, the address or place of business with the intention of hindering, obstructing or defeating the administration, execution or enforcement of a taxation law.Is this the type of law the government expects will be complied with throughout the Australian economy?3290Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have stated very clearly in relation to the GST that we are putting some special rules in place and pro viding particular powers to the ACCC. Those powers, which are important and which will provide a great deal of comfort to those in the community, will make sure that the transitional period to a GST is conducted in a fair and equitable manner and that the cost savings that result from the GST are passed on.As far as other aspects of taxation law are concerned, let me state this: as a general point, where laws are in place and where those laws can be used to ensure that people pay their proper taxes, one would expect those laws to be used. That is a matter for the tax commissioner.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's everybody. You included.WW4Senator KEMP—Will taxation laws be used appropriately? The answer to that is: yes, taxation laws will be used appropriately. As you are aware, those taxation laws are administered by the tax office. Isn't that a surprise!3291O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that a young Australian confessed to Treasurer Costello on Triple J radio last Thursday that he had been forced by the Howard government's youth wages policy to take a cash-in-hand job to pay for his studies? Is the minister aware that the Treasurer said, `Well, you shouldn't tell the Treasurer about cash-in-hand jobs. Luckily I don't know your address so don't tell me'? Minister, if the federal Treasurer does not feel obliged to comply with section 8U of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, can the government credibly expect compliance from small and big business once the GST provides added incentive to engage in the cash economy?3291Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Can't you pick a question that has been written by Senator Cook? Talk about an incredible build-up to making the final point. The advice I would give you—and I don't think I should have to keep on saying this to Labor senators—is this: do not take questions from Senator Peter Cook.32913291Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Does the minister recall that when the Democrats raised concerns about the leakage of toxic fumes into the cabins of British Aerospace 146 aircraft he assured the Senate that modifications are now available for operators to improve the cabin environment? We were informed that at least one major airline has made modifications to every one of its BAe 146 aircraft. Is the minister aware of an incident six weeks ago where the pilot and crew of a BAe 146 aircraft, registration No. JJT, on a flight from Perth to Kununurra reported odours in the cabin and cockpit that made them ill? Is he aware that flight attendants on this flight required oxygen?3291Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I, like Senator Woodley, no doubt, saw the Insight program on the fumes of all aircraft, not just BAe 146s. That Insight program was very insightful and interesting. It is a worldwide problem that the airline industry around the world is concerned about and is looking at, as that program quite clearly showed.You asked me whether I, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, am aware of this particular incident. I cannot remember having read about it myself and it is not included in the notes that I am sometimes given for areas which are not directly under my control. For what it is worth, I am sure you would not be raising it with me if it was not an accurate statement of facts. I am not sure where your question or your statement leads, but certainly I will refer that to the aviation area of the department and see if there is some comment that I can give in response to that.Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator, I do actually appreciate your interest; it is in such contrast to the babble of inane comments and interjections that I am receiving from the Labor Party. I do appreciate your interest at least in a sensible matter and a sensible question.3291Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I do thank the minister for his answer and I am aware of the limitations of a minister representing another minister. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. This is just one incident where a pilot and crew were affected by toxic fumes leaking into this aircraft. The question I would like you to pursue further is: are those modifications working or are they not working? Also, is the minister aware of the risk to public safety when a pilot and copilot of an aircraft are incapacitated by exposure to toxic fumes?3292Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Woodley well knows, because he follows this area, that Australia does have one of the world's best safety records as far as aviation is concerned. All of these incidents, as you are aware, are investigated by CASA or BASI, depending on what the particular incident is. If there were any danger at all, you would be aware, again from previous experience, that BASI or CASA or both would take instant action to address the problem.Senator, I can assure you that both CASA and BASI, as appropriate, are investigating these matters. If there are problems, they will take immediate action. I have absolute confidence in them, as does the government, and I think all Australians do. Our record in aviation shows that that confidence is justified.32923292Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, my question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister accept the views of the Australian Food and Grocery Council submission to the Senate GST inquiry, which states, `The package falls short in providing enduring adequate compensation to the poor and socially disadvantaged'? Is the minister aware that the council argues that the government's assumptions that all taxpayers have common spending patterns is wrong and that, therefore, `there will be a differential price response which will involve larger net price increases for lower income groups than the average CPI increase would imply'? Why is the government pushing ahead with a policy which will unfairly disadvantage less well off Australians to the extent that even business groups now publicly concede that the GST package is unfair and inadequate? 3292Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That question has one merit: it was certainly better than the last question that I received. That is the only merit the question has. What was the name of the council? I wanted to check on the actual name of the council because my memory is that the council endorsed the inclusion of food in the GST package. I am looking over to Senator Schacht to see whether we are speaking about the same submission.Given the attitude of the Labor Party, the council would have given very little comfort to them. There is no support for the ALP position. The business groups are extremely supportive of the government's tax reform package. They provided great assistance in the development of the package, they were consulted with closely and they made some very important statements during the election supporting the government. As Senator Cook might know, as chairman of the tax reform committee, many of those business groups have appeared before Senator Cook's committee and have strongly endorsed the government's tax reform measures.On the first issue—are business groups not supportive of the government's tax reform measure?—business groups are typically strongly behind the government's tax reform, as they have been from day one. You should get very little comfort from the statements of the major business groups.On the compensation package, we have had many debates in this chamber on the compensation package and we believe that we are providing a very generous compensation package. We are providing for real rises in pensions and benefits. We are providing many other benefits to those on pensions. To the taxpayers we are providing the largest tax cuts in Australian history, which we want to deliver and which the Labor Party is attempting to prevent us from delivering.Assuming that the views were quoted correctly—and you always have to qualify that because we have had many examples in this chamber where there have been some extremely selective quotations—and if the council was critical of the compensation package, my answer is: I do not agree with the council. We believe that we have a very fair, well thought out and balanced compensation package.3293Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If the Australian Food and Grocery Council does not believe this government's commitment on adequate compensation, then why should those who really matter in this debate—the Australian people—believe you?3293Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—They certainly believed us at the last election because they voted the government in. They did not believe you. We went to the Australian people and we said to them, `Who do you believe? Do you believe us or do you believe the Labor Party?' They believed us and voted us in. That is why I happen to be here, Senator Schacht, and why you happen to be over there.32933293Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The Prime Minister is officially opening the $2 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in my home state of South Australia tomorrow. Can the minister detail the economic and employment benefits of this expansion for regional South Australia in particular and the nation generally?3293Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Chapman for the question. It is true that tomorrow I will have the pleasure of accompanying the Prime Minister, the Liberal member for Grey, Barry Wakelin, and indeed Senator Chapman to the opening of the $2 billion Olympic Dam expansion. This is an issue of great national importance.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are conversations across the chamber, which are disorderly, and there is shouting, which is also disorderly.JX4Senator MINCHIN—The Labor Party does not seem at all interested in this massive expansion of the Olympic Dam mining project, a project of great significance to the nation as well as to South Australia. This expansion will create 200 additional jobs in the northern region.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Take Winston along.JX4Senator MINCHIN—You are not interested in jobs, are you? It will create another 600 indirect jobs as a result of this expansion, and there were 2,000 people employed in the construction process of the expansion phase. The permanent work force that will now be employed at the Olympic Dam site will be 1,200 people, making Western Mining one of South Australia's major employers.This is the largest uranium body in the world. With the $2 billion invested in this expansion, it is the largest investment by Western Mining anywhere in the world. The company is exporting from this world-class Australian resource a whole range of minerals. The expansion will increase production capacity from 85,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes per annum of copper. Uranium production is expected to increase from the current level of 1,700 tonnes to 4,630 tonnes of uranium per annum. These exports go to several of our major trading partners, Japan, Korea and the European Union, who do continue to rely on nuclear power for the majority of their electricity requirements. Annual export earnings from this expanded project are expected to be around $600 million a year.I think it is important to give credit where it is due, and we do note in particular the cooperation and support for this project of the former minister for the environment, Senator Faulkner, who provided his approval for the expansion in 1996 in what I understand was one of his last acts—probably the only decent thing he did when he was in government. We are pleased to have Senator Faulkner joining us in supporting this very significant project.32933293McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the minister recall saying on 26 March 1997, in response to an amendment moved by Senator Sherry to effectively remove the advance instalment provisions from the superannuation surcharge tax:I think Senator Sherry, in his rhetoric which has so marred sensible discussion on this issue, has actually misunderstood the nature of the advance payment. The advance payment is basically a collection of the surcharge on contributions that have already been received.If, as the minister said, the surcharge tax advance payment is so basic, why has he announced that the government will no longer be requiring an advance payment?3294Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you particularly for the question. I must admit, given Senator Sherry's interest in the surcharge—he spent 95 per cent of his working life thinking about the superannuation surcharge—I was a bit surprised to get that question from you, Senator. Anyway, I certainly appreciate it. The removal of the advance payment on the surcharge has been a very welcome move by the government. Thank you for the opportunity to make some views known on it. This will give you some community reaction. The first one comes from ASFA. It is headed, `ASFA welcomes government action on surcharge.' There we are. It reads:Today's announcement by Senator Rod Kemp, Assistant Treasurer, of the abolition of the superannuation surcharge advance contributions, also known as advance instalments, is greatly welcomed.That was the reaction from ASFA. The Institute of Actuaries of Australia says, `Actuaries welcome the surcharge simplification.' It reads:The Institute of Actuaries of Australia today welcomed the announcement of the Government initiative to simplify the future operation of the superannuation surcharge.This is from IFSA:The Investment and Financial Services Association today welcomed the Government's decision to change a number of policy and operating arrangements for the superannuation surcharge.This has been a very popular announcement by the government.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are being very discourteous to Senator McKiernan. His question is being answered and he is entitled to hear the answer.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—He wasn't listening, Madam President.WW4Senator KEMP—He wasn't listening, Madam President, you are quite right. I was interested that the Labor Party itself seems to have changed its mind on the surcharge, because the Labor Party voted against the third reading. I raised this issue before and Robert Ray convinced me that the Labor Party actually loves the surcharge now, which was a bit of a surprise.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Not the process, the principle. Get the process right.WW4Senator KEMP—The surcharge has now been in effect for three years. The Labor Party, even with Senator Sherry's great attention to the surcharge, never came up with an alternative way of collecting the surcharge. After three years, there is no Labor policy on an alternative way to collect the surcharge. So I assume that now the Labor Party likes the surcharge. I have listened to Senator Robert Ray and I am now convinced that the Labor Party in fact likes the surcharge. But we have to remember that initially the Labor Party voted against the surcharge.We were very happy to make this announcement. We have consulted widely with industry and we have looked at ways in which we can improve the operation of the surcharge. We are delighted with the response from the industry. We welcome that response. Unlike the Labor Party, we are a consultative government. We continue to work with people, and we look forward to working with the industry on further measures to improve the operation of the superannuation surcharge. Senator McKiernan, thank you very much for the question.3294McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I thank the Assistant Treasurer for confirming how accurate Senator Sherry was two years ago. By way of a supplementary question, I ask the minister whether he recalls telling the Senate on Tuesday of this week:. . . the government announced an initiative for group certificates to report the value of fringe benefits in excess of $1,000. This measure addresses salary packaging schemes which could be used to obtain benefits or to avoid surcharges such as the superannuation surcharge . . . Is the minister aware of an editorial from the March edition of the Australian Taxpayers Association magazine, which states:The intention of the Government's new approach is to stop the use of salary packaging to avoid the iniquitous superannuation surcharge. The irony is that it is likely to have the opposite effect.Is it not the case that you have more super tax backflips to do if you are to stop people avoiding the surcharge?3295Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It is a bit hard to work out whether there was a question in there, but I am very happy to have a further 60 seconds to talk on the surcharge. Speaking about backflips on the surcharge, the Labor Party voted for the surcharge in the House of Representatives and then backflipped in the Senate and voted against the surcharge. Now Senator Robert Ray assures us that the Labor Party loves the surcharge and now we know that they have backflipped again. On the issues of backflips, Senator, I think your record looks pretty awful, to be quite frank.We were bringing in the changes to the FBT and reporting on group certificates. I am surprised you criticised that, because that was also your policy when you went to the last election. I am rather surprised you criticise that. Didn't you know that was your policy? How silly can you get? A Labor senator stands up and criticises a measure which happens to be part of his policy platform. How silly can you get? (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous3295329515:09:003295Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Madam President, I have an answer to a question that Senator Margetts asked me yesterday. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Question: If so, can he advise what authorities were alerted to these incidents, and when that was done?Answer: ANSTO promptly informed the appropriate authorities even though no limits were exceeded. In relation to the fuel rod incident on 1 February, ARPANSA was notified on the day and the ANSTO Safety Review Committee on the following day. In regard to the two events detected on 15 and 18 February, involving small increases in releases of airborne emissions, ARPANSA was informed within 24 hours of each event, even though no notification levels were exceeded.Miscellaneous3295329515:09:003295Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Pursuant to standing order No. 74(5), I ask Senator Alston, representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 410, which I asked on 17 February 1999.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—To the best of my knowledge, Senator Alston is not present. He is not in his place.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I will see that he gets the question on the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous3295329515:10:003295Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to questions without notice asked by Senators Bishop and O'Brien today relating to the proposed new tax system.The answers relate to the goods and services tax and the issue of the black economy—certainly not to the superannuation surcharge. Senator Kemp's total failure in that area is obvious to everyone in the industry and the media and there is no need to address that issue, but Senator Kemp totally failed to adequately answer the questions relating to the black economy.One of the constantly touted themes of the Liberal government in respect of a goods and services tax is that it will crack down on the black economy. Senator Kemp said, `One of the ways to tackle the cash economy is to tackle tax reform.' Of course, we all know what that means: the introduction of a goods and services tax.The question from my colleague Senator Bishop went specifically to the problems in the housing construction industry in New Zealand and Canada, where after the introduction of their goods and services taxes there was significant evasion—in fact, a significant increase in the black economy as a result of the equivalent of a goods and services tax.Why does this happen? The great problem in the housing industry and other industries as well is that the goods and services tax is a tax primarily on the labour content of that service provision. In the housing industry, the considerable majority of the price that is charged relates to the cost of labour, and this is the area where all the evidence internationally points to the most significant level of evasion of a goods and services tax.Mr Damien Walshe, who is a partner of Arthur Andersen, referred to `evasion with a GST VAT, especially in a labour-intensive job'. He said:When you have relatively low levels of goods being inputed to a service provision, the opportunity for the service provider not to declare income is where the real problem lies.And this is one of the problems with a GST, and in particular with the housing industry. A study in Canada by the Ontario state government found that their GST led to `widespread participation in the underground economy', causing lost revenue of $Can2.3 billion. So the central argument advanced by this government, that a GST will crack down and reduce the black economy, is false. There is no evidence that that is the case, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary from Canada, New Zealand, Europe and the United Kingdom that the black market, as it is known, will increase.There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times of August 1998. The Henley Centre, a consumer consultancy which interviewed 1,000 adults, carried out what is called a sensitivity sample, and they found that Britain's black economy is booming. This was also confirmed by European Union economists, who estimated that the black economy in Europe—bearing in mind that every country in Europe has a VAT or a GST of varying levels—was expanding and could now account for 16 per cent of the European Union's gross domestic product.In respect of question 6, there are some effective ways at present under the Tax Administration Act of 1953 to identify people who are engaged in the black economy, and this section will be used in respect of the implementation of a goods and services tax. Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, said very firmly:The answer is yes. They will be used appropriately. We have section 8U of the Tax Act of 1953 to crack down on the black economy.Then, what do we hear from the Treasurer, Mr Costello, on Triple J radio last Thursday? He advised a young person who rang in and who was working cash-in-hand to effectively ignore that section of the tax act. The Treasurer is telling the nation, `We are going to crack down on the black economy,' but he effectively advised the person who rang in not to worry about it—not to worry about section 8U of the tax act. So what hope have we got, if a GST comes in, of effectively cracking down on the black economy? (Time expired)15:15:003296Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Senator Sherry gives the game away when he commences his answer and says, `Tax reform means the introduction of a GST.' Senator Schacht in his question referred to a submission to the GST inquiry, and that is where the Labor Party has got it totally wrong. What we are talking about is the introduction of a new tax system, and Senator Sherry ought to have been around this place long enough to know that, when you introduce a new tax system, there is far more to it than just the introduction of a GST.He selectively quoted comments that are made overseas in relation to the black economy, but in fact this government is totally committed to measures that combat tax avoidance and minimisation. The black economy is one of those areas where this government is totally committed. So the sooner the Labor Party, in all their discussions about what is happening in relation to tax reform, of which one part is the introduction of a GST, come to their senses and realise that what we are introducing is a total overhaul of the taxation system for the benefit of the nation, perhaps the arguments they are trying to put forward might appear to be more sound to those people who are trying to promote them.We have done an enormous amount in the last three years in making sure that people who are cheating the system, who are avoiding the system, are in fact being caught. The social security system is just one area. Something like $40 million a week, I think, is being saved from social security fraud alone. So do not say that this government is soft on tax minimisation and tax avoidance because it has done all it can in those three years to make sure that people who are not paying their proper dues by way of taxation will have to in the future.Some of the actions that have already been implemented are, for instance, the closing of the abuse of the research and development tax concession. We got tremendous opposition from the Labor Party when we were trying to make changes in the area of R&D, but in fact we closed the research and development tax concession syndication arrangement because they had been focused on tax minimisation rather than on genuine research and development, and so the definition of a concession was also tightened.So do not talk about this government going soft on tax minimisation or tax avoidance. We have stopped the abuse of luxury car leasing. You had 13 years to try to stop that, and what did you do? Nothing at all.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not true.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—You had 13 years to stop that abuse, Senator Cook, and you know it. We closed the infrastructure borrowing scheme for new applications because the tax concession was being exploited increasingly for tax minimisation by financiers and high income investors. Without this action, if pending applications had been certified, the revenue cost could have been over $4 billion over a period of three years. So don't you talk about this government being soft on tax minimisation or other measures of tax avoidance.There are a number of measures that are currently in place, including things like extending the general anti-avoidance provisions of the taxation system to combat withholding tax avoidance, to prevent the trafficking in trust losses. There was no mention or any credit from the opposition about the measures this government has taken in order to try to catch people who are not paying their fair share of taxation. All we have is people like Senator Sherry coming in here and saying, `We have some reports of the black economy in other countries of the world increasing with the introduction of a goods and services tax.' Let me tell you: goods and services taxes has been in place in many of those countries for in excess of 30 years, and many in excess of 25 years.If you would like to go through the list of all of those countries, you will find that there are very few countries that will complain that the black economy is greater after you have a goods and services tax. There is a whole range of other measures and a whole range of other reasons as to why people will try to avoid tax through the black economy. But, as I said, do not let the Labor Party talk about this government being soft on tax avoidance because, ever since we came to government, we have tried to close some of those loopholes which the Labor Party left in place for a period of 13 years without trying to do anything to close them. (Time expired)15:20:003297O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I heard that they had missed out presenting one of the awards at the academy awards process earlier this week. It was for best imitation of a B grade Hollywood movie, and it was to go Senator Kemp. We all asked what the movie was and were told that it was for the movie Clueless . After his performance today, I can believe that. There is no reason to suspect that he had any idea of the sort of answer he was giving to the question I asked, which was essentially about the administration of a law of the parliament—a law which the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer are responsible for administering.What Senator Sherry referred to from the question that I asked was in fact a statement by the principal minister, the Treasurer, on radio, encouraging young people, effectively, to ignore the tax laws. We then had the spectacle today of Senator Kemp obviously not understanding the gravity of the actions of the Treasurer when he effectively tried to ignore the question, and particularly the supplementary question, that I asked.Frankly, if this government were serious about dealing with the black economy, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer would take seriously the words of a young person who was saying that he had to take a cash-in-hand job arising out of other policies of this government. But, no, there was no seriousness. There was no response from the Treasurer on the radio on the one hand which would indicate there is any seriousness about the issue, and there is no way that you could interpret Senator Kemp's non-answer as the answer of a minister who takes seriously the question of dealing with the black economy.Frankly, what you would have to say about this government, and the Prime Minister in particular, is that over the years there has been no consistent pursuit of an enforcement of the tax system. This Prime Minister, in fact, was responsible in his previous period as Treasurer under the Fraser government for leaving massive tax avoidance schemes in place for years—hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue was being lost—and now we have seen him dragged kicking and screaming into the tax reform process. But what does he say is the solution? A GST.We heard Senator Ferguson today say that the GST is somehow the solution to the black economy. He talked about the countries, particularly in Europe, that have a goods and services type tax and how that was somehow going to be the solution to the black economy. Professor Friedrich Schneider, a professor at Austria's Linz University, is reported in the May 1997 edition of The Economist as saying that he:. . . calculates that the shadow economy may—and he is talking about 1997—account for more than one-fifth of GDP in Belgium, Italy and Spain.Certainly Belgium and Italy have a goods and services tax, but think about what he says about Germany. He says:Even in famously law-abiding Germany, perhaps one D-mark in seven goes unreported to the authorities.That is, it is in the black economy. He also says Italy's shadow economy is around 25 per cent of GDP.So much for goods and services type taxes being the panacea for dealing with the black economy.Frankly, this is a joke. Today we saw Senator Kemp completely disregard comments from organisations like the Housing Industry Association of Australia—who I think have some reputation in relation to their public policy statements—who are saying that the GST will in fact increase the black economy in the home construction industry. I suggest that the Australian public—judging on the performance of this minister today—are much more likely to believe reputable organisations such as the Housing Industry Association of Australia on the question of what this GST is going to do to the black economy than they are this minister, Senator Kemp, or certainly the Treasurer, Mr Costello, who show a total disregard for the application of the laws of this parliament.15:25:003298Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I rise on this matter of taxation and the questions that were asked in the Senate here today. I agree with my colleague Senator Ferguson that the Labor Party is obsessed with the GST and is avoiding the fact that we have put a total package before the Australian community—our new tax system. Why is the Labor Party avoiding everything else? Because it wants to avoid talking about the fact that people are going to get substantial income tax cuts—$13 billion of income tax cuts.Why is the government doing this? The government is doing this because it identified—in fact I chaired a committee that looked at this last year and part of the year before—that one of the key impediments in the Australian economy for ordinary folk was that the marginal tax rates were too high. This applies to lots of people and lots of small businesses. Marginal tax rates were just too high and people would not do the overtime, they would not work at weekends and they did not want to do the extra yards. Hence our proposal to reduce the marginal tax rates so that, with our new tax scales, 80 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar—a huge difference from the 43c and 34c which currently applies in those rates.But again I return to the Labor Party. What has it been on about? The Labor Party is in favour of staying with the current mess of indirect taxes. The Labor Party is in favour of staying with the wholesale sales tax.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Yes.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—Of course you are; that is quite right. As the budget documents make plain, the federal indirect tax take of the economy is coming down. Estimates prepared by Access Economics clearly show that the average for federal indirect taxes for the last 10 years has been 5.64 per cent, coming down from about 6½ per cent about 10 years ago. Access Economics have done projections of the economy for the next 10 years. Their estimate is that, with those existing tax rates, the federal income tax take of indirect taxes will drop to 4.8 per cent—so 5.64 per cent down to 4.8 per cent—which leaves a deficiency in dollar terms of over $5 billion. That $5 billion is one-third of the wholesale sales tax of about $15 billion. So the Labor Party, by implication, is in favour of increasing wholesale sales taxes by 30 per cent—by one-third. We all remember what happened in the 1993-94 budget when the Labor Party put up taxes—both excise and indirect taxes with the wholesale sales tax—and increased the tax take from the Australian community by 30 per cent over those Keating years.We are in favour of tax reform which gives incentive to people to work, to save and to invest. The tax system we have proposed will favour exports. The tax system that we have proposed will favour all businesses. The tax system we have proposed will make costs lower for all business, but one I want to particularly single out is the transport industry. The Treasury estimate is that costs will go down by 6.7 per cent for all road transport.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We have been pretty patient with Senator Gibson, but the point goes to relevance. The two questions that I moved that we take note of—Nos 4 and 6—relate to a goods and services tax and the black economy, not the other issues that Senator Gibson has been talking about. I think he has had fairly reasonable go but, in terms of relevance, I think he should be drawn to the issues of a GST and the black economy. They were the issues.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Only questions four and six related to the black economy. Senator Gibson, I am sure that you can be relevant when you address those issues.10000Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. They were part of questions about the application of GST, which is part of the government's ANTS package, a new tax system. That is why it is relevant. Just one final point about transport: the Australian Road Transport Forum, when appearing before our Senate committee a few weeks ago in Sydney, stressed that they expected road transport costs for heavy transport to go down by between 15 and 19 per cent.With regard to evasion, we all know that there is a cash economy in this economy right now. What did the Labor Party do about that over the past 13 years? Yesterday, we had a visitor here in this parliament, Professor Cnossen, who is a world expert on VAT and GST. His estimate was that in fact the evasion in Europe is nowhere near the numbers that have been quoted by the Labor Party. He said, `Please use your commonsense. The VAT in Europe is about eight per cent of the economy, eight per cent of GDP. As it is effective and is growing, how can it possibly be that evasion is serious in Europe?' He is quite correct. (Time expired)15:30:003299Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—To pick up on one of the points raised by Senator Gibson, we know that the economy is growing strongly—somewhere in the order of three to four per cent in recent years. Logically flowing from that, the take on wholesale sales tax has been increasing. It is not a declining or dead tax; it is working effectively as there is growth in the economy. Indeed, the latest figures show that as at December 1998 the increase in revenue from the wholesale sales tax was something in the order of 9.1 per cent.Having addressed that point, what do we know about the black economy in Australia? We know it is variously estimated at being around $15 billion, $18 billion, or indeed up to $20 billion. We know the tax take of a GST on a revenue flow of figures of that type would be something around $1.5 to $2 billion. We know that because various officials from the Australian Taxation Office have advised the Senate committee of that in recent weeks.We also know that any government take from the GST on the black economy is at best speculative. The government has suggested somewhere between $1½ billion and $2 billion, but that is at best problematic. It may be higher, but in all probability it may be significantly lower. What do we know about current changes that are working their way through the Australian economy? We know that there is an orgy of privatisation going on—outsourcing and deregulation. We know that there is a shift in the employment base of this nation from direct employment to contractors and self-employed persons. We know that a whole lot of industry sectors are moving, or have moved, to contract employment and in particular, self-employment. Examples of those are the home building industry, construction and subconstruction, personal service industries, taxi driving, chauffeur hire, limousine driving and a range of professional employment practices—lawyers, accountants, consultants and architects, to name a few.We know that in all of those industries the tax at the moment on labour is currently optional and increasingly regarded as more and more optional by a range of persons working within those industries. Indeed, Dr Silberberg, from the Housing Industry Association, told the Senate committee:We attribute the incidence of the black economy in the building area to the so-called owner-builder sector, where there are less than scrupulous players who seek to circumvent particularly the requirements of state legislation, such as builder registration and compulsory home warranty, and who flirt with householders for householders to take out a building permit. That is not to say that there is not a segment of the population which genuinely is owner building. He went on to say:It is going to be exceptionally difficult for anyone to avoid a GST on building materials. They are readily visible . . . Our contention is that there is a significant incentive for people to operate outside of the GST by having no GST on their own labour or labour services.Another industry talks about incentives to avoid the GST. I refer here to the Australian Taxi Industry Association. During questioning from Senator Bartlett, Mr Gunning from that organisation talked about the nature of the taxi industry—how it is organised, how the remittance process has been put in place, how there are 70,000 people employed in driving taxis around Australia. He addressed the necessity to license each individual cab driver, not just the owner. He said:We, obviously, as a national association, have worried about our standing in the community, essentially, partly because of the experience that you referred to earlier with tax compliance. We know that at least late last year some problems started to emerge in New Zealand in a way that was not expected by the authorities. To summarise it, some taxidrivers managed to position themselves so that they could opt out. So we have potentially a situation in New Zealand at the moment where customers are paying GST but definitionally that GST is not being past on to the tax office. We think that would be a fairly debilitating thing to happen in our industry, not the sort of image we would like to project and not the sort of image that really encourages the kind of professionalism we are looking for.There you have the Taxi Industry Association—employing something in the order of 70,000 drivers around Australia—saying that they have been to New Zealand and their observations are that even if the GST is charged in that country, the taxidrivers are not remitting that on to the New Zealand government. So the submissions and the evidence specifically addressed the black economy. (Time expired)15:35:003300Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—This week the opposition really is becoming a cracked record. For the fourth day in a row we have heard them focusing questions on the GST. They have not laid one blow on the government or on the Assistant Treasurer in their attempts to do so. Today what have we heard them raise? The issue of the black or the cash economy. Again, by focusing on the GST they are ignoring, as Senator Ferguson said, the fact that we are for total tax reform. We are introducing a new tax system, not just changing one tax.Senator O'Brien quoted an Austrian professor regarding the extent of the cash economy in some European countries. Well, come in spinner! Certainly those countries have a GST as part of their tax system but they do not have a world's best practice tax system and they do not have a world's best practice GST as will be part of the new tax system that this government is introducing. We are introducing a world's best practice tax system. In particular, those European countries applied differential rates and exemptions to food items. That is, of course, what some people and groups in Australia—drawing succour from the Labor Party's opposition to tax reform—want to have as part of our tax system. They want food exempted from the GST.I remind the Senate that only yesterday none other than Mr Carmody, the Australian Commissioner for Taxation, emphasised the folly of eliminating food from the GST—of zero rating food. Mr Carmody is an expert in tax collection. He is an expert in dealing with compliance and with tax avoidance. He said only yesterday that not having a GST on food would be an absolute disaster; indeed, that eliminating a GST on food would result in widespread tax avoidance. That is why the black economy remains significant in those European countries that Senator O'Brien talked about—because they have a different rate for food, and they have zero rating for other items of food. As I said, that will not be part of this government's new tax system. The GST component of our new tax system will include food as an essential part of the GST package. So let us have none of this nonsense of quoting what happens in European countries as far as the cash economy is concerned.The significant part of the new tax system is that businesses with turnovers in excess of $50,000 per year will have to register to obtain refund of the goods and services tax on their inputs, on those goods that they use as part of the process of their business.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about New Zealand?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Senator Sherry quoted New Zealand in his remarks earlier. The fact is that when New Zealand introduced what currently would rate as the world's best tax system as far as a GST is concerned, many more firms registered than was ever expected, Senator Sherry. That removed the activities of those firms from the cash economy and brought them into the legitimate economy and into the tax net.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—It did not eliminate it.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—This government has never claimed that the new tax system would eliminate the cash economy. What we have said is that it would make substantial inroads into the cash economy. And that is exactly what it will do—it will bring into the legitimate economy those businesses that are currently in the cash economy, because they will have to register. Even those few business operators that choose to remain outside the legitimate economy will be paying tax on their consumption. When they earn dollars, when they earn their income, when they consume, they will be paying tax on that consumption which they are currently avoiding. That is a second area where the cash economy will be eliminated. Those opposite ignore that as well. So there are two areas: firstly, those businesses that will be drawn into the legitimate economy that are currently in the cash economy and, secondly, even those that stay outside the legitimate economy will be taxed on their consumption.The government has taken many initiatives already to deal with those who cheat on taxation. Apart from the overall package of tax reform, further initiatives against tax cheats are an important part of the reform process. An anti-avoidance measure will be introduced to apply pending the introduction of the entity tax regime. We will be modernising and broadening the general anti-avoidance measures to deal with existing and emerging risks, and reviewing specific anti-avoidance provisions. So there will be specific tax avoidance measures as part of this new tax system.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business33023302Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the government business order of the day relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on Information Technologies be called on immediately.Committees330233023302Debate resumed.Amendment (by Senator Ian Campbell )—by leave—proposed:Omit paragraph (1), substitute:"(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Technologies, be appointed to: (a) evaluate the development of self-regulatory codes in the information industries; (b) monitor the personal, social and economic impact of continuing technological change created by industries and services utilising information technologies: (c) examine the Government's decision to establish a regulatory framework relating to illegal or offensive material published and transmitted through online services such as the internet; and (d) inquire into and report on such other matters as may be referred to it by the Senate."15:43:003302Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition will not be opposing this amendment or the substantive motion behind it when they come on for voting in due course. I just want to place on the record a few comments about the process that has occurred to date. This morning the motion was discussed at length for about an hour and a half, and a range of problems were identified by senators Faulkner and Ray, among others. Consequently, the government withdrew the substantive motion for discussion, and the government's motion is now before us. It is normal practice for notices of motion creating Senate committees to be circulated for many days beforehand for there to be discussion amongst the parties—and, indeed, often discussion at the relevant Senate committee—to identify the importance, if any, of the suggested draft, to discuss likely consequences and to pick up amendments from other interested parties. That has not, that I am aware of, occurred in this case, and we ask ourselves why, because the issues behind the Select Committee on Information Technology are not unimportant matters. There has been a lot of discussion in the press lately relating to Internet pornography and the effect of this on children and families. We in the Labor Party regard those as serious issues for discussion and review. Hopefully, some policy guidance will come out of the committee as it addresses those matters in due course.We think they are worthwhile subjects for discussion in isolation, and we are somewhat concerned that somehow a nexus has been created with other bills and legislation in this place. Not three weeks ago there was a lengthy debate in this chamber when the government was heavily critical of ALP senators' alleged deliberate delays and alleged obstructionism in the processes of review in the Senate committee on the Telstra bills. They said it was an absolute matter of urgency, that we were holding up the program, and delaying for the sake of delay. And yet, in respect of the Telstra bills dealing with a company worth somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion—depending on how much is privatised, if any—the speeches on the second reading concluded on Monday evening and there has been no further development of the committee stage.I think it is likely that the committee stage will take in the order of four to seven hours, but the government for its own reasons has chosen not to bring on the Telstra bills. And we squarely ask the question: what is the connection, what is the relationship, what is the nexus between this Select Committee on Information Technologies and the passage of the Telstra bills? It seems to the opposition that the Telstra bills are being sullied by trade-offs in other areas; that a certain amount of sleaze is starting to develop.We say that the Telstra bills are important matters. They address matters of national significance and there is a range of issues that need to be resolved quickly. We have been ready all of this week to discuss the worth or otherwise of the government's proposals on the Telstra bills; yet we see that somehow or other they are becoming secondary and being involved in trade-offs or giveaways or concessions made concerning the appointment or creation of this Select Committee on Information Technologies.As I said at the outset, the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Information Technologies are worthwhile matters. We do not have any problem with going through reviews of bills that address those matters; we think there is serious difference of opinion in the community on the matters raised in those terms of reference, and we are happy to participate in those debates. But we see them as separate matters, not related to the passage of the Telstra bills, and we are concerned that the Telstra bills are being delayed and that a degree of sleaze or sulliedness or dirtiness—however you describe it—is starting to enter into the government and its deliberations on these matters. So it is only proper to express our concerns and to put those on the record.15:47:003303Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise also to make comment on this very interesting proposition before the Senate. As you have heard, Labor intends to support the amendment and the proposition. We do so on the basis that, as my senatorial colleagues have stated, the issue of information technology is one that is quite central to a whole range of social, economic and indeed personal considerations of Australian citizens. However, like my colleagues, I am gravely concerned that this issue has been brought forward at a time that actually compromises the stated intent of this committee. We are in the midst of a Telstra debate that has now being delayed. Surprisingly, the reference of this committee has cropped up at quite a critical time.The previous expansion of the environment, recreation, communications and the arts Senate committee to the environment, communications, information technology and the arts committee reflected a change in the way that the government chose to manage their portfolio structures following the last election and the formation of the new parliament. There is certainly plenty of scope within the new ECITA committee to explore the critical issues that the Senate finds now forming part of the terms of reference of this select committee. My colleagues have previously traversed at some length the plethora of quite inordinate discrepancies in this proposition facing the Senate this morning which led to its adjournment and its subsequent revisiting this afternoon.I would like to turn briefly to the issue that appears to be at the core of the provocation of the motion from the government—and that is the current issue relating to Internet content. We have seen over the last week or so a range of comments from the minister and from interested parties in relation to the management of Internet content, particularly with respect to pornography and the ability of citizens to protect themselves from material that they consider offensive to themselves. Senator Alston's announcement last Friday—that it was the government's intent to regulate this issue and take forward some of the concepts that had been developed by an industry code of practice proposal into a more formal legislative process—caught the sector by surprise. The fact that Minister Alston did this, having followed a process of what the industry presumed to be sincere consultation in preparation for a workable and realistic framework to take on the very difficult challenge of providing security and protection for Australian citizens with respect to offensive material on the Internet, was quite devastating for the parties involved. It became very clear that the manoeuvre that Senator Alston engaged himself in on Friday had motivations outside the process that he was locked into at that time.I believe that this shows the Australian community two things. First of all—and I look forward to the minister's assurances otherwise—it has perhaps compromised what was a number of years work, in fact dating back to 1995, in preparation of an industry code of practice, an Internet code of practice, that put forward the best and most achievable framework in which Australians could move forward with some confidence of protection from offensive material. I believe that if this has been put at risk by the minister's action he must in some way retrieve that position to allow those negotiations and that progress to proceed. He must do this without further tainting the process by allowing the reference to this committee to undermine the progress that has been made in those areas.The other issue is one of substance of the minister's proposals. I do not believe this is the appropriate time to engage in debate about the substance of the proposals. Suffice it to say that they were certainly outside of what is considered—very broadly within the community—as realistic and achievable outcomes. It is no surprise that this specific issue arises under point (c) of the amendment. The part of the terms of reference referring to this issue is:(c) examine the Government's decision to establish a regulatory framework relating to illegal or offensive material published and transmitted through online services such as the Internet;It is my hope that the Select Committee on Information Technologies has ample and broad opportunity to explore this issue at some length, that all of the interested parties have the opportunity to express their views and that the parliament emerges from that process far better informed to make sensible decisions about how best to approach this issue on behalf of the Australian community.15:53:003304Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank other senators who have contributed to this debate. Clearly the opposition senators would be expected to criticise the government on this matter and try and draw a connection between this and the Telstra debate. But there were a number of key issues that were raised by opposition senators. Senator Faulkner and some others have raised the problem, perceived in their minds, of the committee being created without a specific reference. In the intervening period since this debate was adjourned we have sought, with the cooperation of all honourable senators, to see those references placed by way of the amendment which I have just moved by leave.I might just say, even though I am probably defending the motion in its original form, that the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies is a committee that was formed originally back in 1991 and re-formed in 1997. In that respect it is not that different from other select committees that have been reappointed since the new parliament has commenced. Indeed, only a few Senate sitting days ago we re-established the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy. No-one from this side got up and said, `This is some sort of conspiracy between the left of Australian politics'—that it is Labor and the Greens desperately getting together to create some international conspiracy to bring down competition as we know it.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Capitalists. Don't just stick to competition.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—And indeed, Senator Carr, that it was some sort of conspiracy that was linked to the Telstra debate. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have lived on this planet for only a short time. My view—having been out of government, in government, in business and having various experiences—is that, if you have got the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up in parliament, in government, in opposition or in business, stuff-ups are usually the way of human endeavour in many areas. When we start with good intentions and we achieve those good outcomes it is usually the result of a bit of good luck along the way.So I would not dare suggest that Senator Margetts's motion to establish a select committee was part of some left-wing conspiracy to undo the Telstra debate. It is very unkind of senators opposite to suggest it about the establishment of a select committee on an area of the Australian economy—and indeed the world economy—that is so dynamic and so critical to our future. I think the latest figures showed it was a $69 billion industry and there are something like 7,500 companies in IT—probably rising at the rate of 10 or even 50 a day. It is a massively dynamic industry.It was probably not sensible to try and tie down the references that such an important select committee should be able to receive. What you should do is allow for some flexibility. The amendment that I have moved and the original motion allow flexibility for issues such as convergence and such as Senator Bob Brown made in relation to access to equity. I note that in terms of equity of access to things like the Internet—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Equity: that is a share market concept.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I mean equity in terms of being fair to all of our citizens, ensuring that all of our citizens across the country, regardless of their income or their means or their place in society, have access to the benefits of the information revolution—which is probably the biggest revolution which has affected the citizens of this globe. This government can show that through the tax reform process the cost of the hardware required to get onto the Internet, for example, will be massively reduced. The cost of PCs, computers, peripherals, modems and all of the other hardware that you need to have easy access to the Internet will be significantly reduced by a new tax system.Labor, to their ultimate detriment, are supporting an old tax system that puts a 22 per cent tax on computers. On the smallest computer that a young person in lower to middle income suburbs in Australia would need to go out and buy to get access to the Internet, Labor say, `No, you can pay a 22 per cent tax before you start.' We are saying, `Let's make sure that that tax is lowered to a simple, once-off, single 10 per cent GST which, if you are a small business, will be rebated.'Similarly, with the Telstra debate—which the opposition have brought into this debate—the opposition are saying to the government, `No, we don't want you to spend $700 million on improving rural telecommunications infrastructure'—which will massively increase the number of people in Australia who can get access to the Internet—through the proceeds of the sale of the balance of Telstra. They are saying, `No, you can't have that.'In terms of access to equity, I agree with my colleague on the other side Senator Bob Brown that these are important issues. The government takes them very seriously—indeed, it is making a bigger commitment to them than any government in the history of our great nation. Senator Bob Brown and some senators in the opposition suggested that the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—a committee that I served on for some years—should do it. I found Senator Brown's argument a little unconvincing in that, if you were to load all of these matters on to that standing committee—a committee that deals with the environment, which is another crucial area of public policy and an area that this government has made an incredible commitment to in terms of the quality of policy and the money we are spending on it through the Natural Heritage Trust Fund—it would be to the detriment of good public policy in the environment area. It is important that the work of that committee in the environment area not be frozen out or squeezed out by this massive load that we hope will involve consideration of public policy and information technology.There are a couple of other matters that I wish to discuss here, one of them raised by Senator Faulkner. He quite correctly said that the opposition had identified that there was no report date for this committee. We sought to correct that by negotiating with senators from the opposition who were interested in this matter to find a mechanism to have a reporting date. There is also the fact that the motion setting up the select committee did not include any specific references, and particularly did not include the matter of wrapping up the report that the opposition had generated in the previous parliament. The lack of a reporting date was clearly an oversight. I should have looked more closely at that. We thank the opposition for raising it. We fixed it as quickly as we could. The other matter that Senator Faulkner raised in his speech which was, I thought, being a bit naughty—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Not Senator Faulkner!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It is not like Senator Faulkner to be a bit naughty; he is usually extremely naughty. He suggested that all of the select committees in this parliament had come as initiatives of the Greens or the Democrats, anybody except Labor. The facts, indeed the Hansard , one of the most accurate recordings—probably not of the facts but certainly of the words of senators—shows that Senator Faulkner, as recently as 24 November, was claiming credit for the idea of having a Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System. Ultimately, another party moved that—AW5CARRSenator Carr—We did not move it.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, you did not move it, but it was Senator Faulkner's initiative. I do not think Senator Faulkner should do himself out of the praise for the historic importance that should be placed on the formation of that important select committee. It was his idea; it was the opposition's idea. He says, `We suggested originally that this should be conducted by a Senate select committee.' I do not think Senator Faulkner should back away from this. Maybe it was not his idea, but I think he should be proud of the fact that it came from the Australian Labor Party. It is one of the few ideas the Labor Party has had since the election—even before the election. It was a good idea and he convinced other honourable senators to support the idea. I do not think he should say it was someone else's idea. Clearly, when Senator Margetts's committee was set up, we were happy to support it. I know that Senator John Quirke was. He is the chairman of that and he tells me that he has already held two meetings and is getting on with the jobs of that committee.In conclusion, Senator Mark Bishop, my colleague from Western Australia on the other side of the chamber, talked a few moments ago about the second reading stage of Telstra being delayed. I have a page here, generated by the statistics section of the Senate Table Office, that shows that in the last half a dozen years at least a dozen bills have had their passage delayed towards the end of the second reading stage. In fact, this very week is probably a very good example. The first bill to be debated in this place relating to a new tax system, the fringe benefits reporting bill, has been concluded at the end of the second reading stage because the opposition wants to pursue some issues relating to that bill. The government would have preferred to have proceeded and have that bill pass through all stages but, because one or two members in the opposition wanted to discuss some issues relating to that bill, we agreed to halt it at the end of the second reading stage and hold those discussions.There are a range of other bills that the opposition, when they were in government, pulled—to use the vernacular—towards the end of the second reading stage or at the second reading stage when it suited them. The government has made it quite clear that we are having discussions with any senators who retain an open mind in relation to any of the Telstra bills, with a view to successfully concluding their passage at the second reading stage and through the committee stages, as we are doing with the opposition in relation to a new tax system. I do not hear the opposition saying that we are being slack, or tricky, or sleazy, to quote Senator Bishop, when we pull a bill when the opposition wants us to pull it. If the government decides to pull the three Telstra sale bills, in their different guises, after 37 weeks of consideration in Senate committees—that must be some sort of a record; I will have to do some more research for the fourth edition of the Road Block newsletter, which will be going to press later this evening—and some 70 hours plus of debate in this chamber, it is somewhat cute for the opposition to say, `How dare you delay this legislation.' We have had more repetitive speeches on the Telstra sale bills than we did, I would suggest, even on the native title bills—which you endured, Madam Deputy President. The government appreciates the constructive contributions made to the debate about this select committee. I look forward to this select committee doing some good work in this crucial area of the Australian and world economy.16:07:003307Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I apologise for my late arrival to the chamber, but I think this new amendment cannot go unremarked upon. This morning I spoke in strong support of the re-establishment of the Select Committee on Information Technologies. I did so, on behalf of my party, on the understanding that we would be re-establishing the terms of reference that operated for the last Senate select committee on this matter. Not only that, one of the strongest reasons put forward in this chamber—not just by the Democrats but by others, including Senator Harradine—was that there was an outstanding report, a report that is currently before the chair, in that we have the chairperson's draft of a report that needs to be finalised and acted upon. So those were the grounds and there was also the fact that we support very strongly and believe that a committee that looks specifically at IT related matters in their own right is warranted and appropriate.This morning I mentioned the broad range of areas and issues that we would like to see that committee examine. In fact I mooted the idea of an amendment very similar to the one before us and I was under the impression that the minister was drafting an amendment. The last informal looking amendment I saw drafted took into account the concerns of those in the chamber who supported the select committee and who sought to replicate the old terms of reference. However, I have just walked into the chamber and seen a very new set of terms of reference—granted that three out of four ain't bad. Three out of four essentially do what it was intended the committee would do; that is, monitor the personal, social and economic impacts of continuing technological change, look at outstanding reports and, lastly, give the committee the purview to look into related IT matters. I now refer to term of reference (c):examine the Government's decision to establish a regulatory framework relating to illegal or offensive material published and transmitted through online services such as the Internet;This seems to be a new one. It was certainly not part of the discussions this morning. In fact I thought the government were suggesting this morning that there was not necessarily an inquiry mooted, that they had a particular inquiry in mind when they were seeking the re-establishment or the continuation of this committee.This morning people talked a lot about process and the fact that the process was deemed inadequate—that we were dealing with the establishment of a select committee without appropriate terms of reference before us. The Democrats echoed those concerns. We thought those concerns would be resolved swiftly through the drafting of an amendment that sought to maintain the terms of reference that were previously in place. So we are rather concerned and pretty angry that the new terms of reference include what is essentially a new inquiry, an inquiry that—as far as I am concerned—has not been discussed with any players that I am aware of in relation to this committee.It is not that I am suggesting that (c) is inappropriate because we should not be looking into regulatory frameworks that look at illegal or offensive materials on the net. I suggest that, if you do look into the history of not only this committee but also its precursor—the community standards committee—you will find that some of this work has been done. I am not going to draw to the Senate's attention today the conclusions or recommendations that have arisen out of various inquiries that touch on online services but they are there if you want to have a look—the difficulties in relation to regulation, the need for regulation in some circumstances and the types of material that are on the net.I am not suggesting this is not an important issue—because it is. But why can't this issue be put up as the first inquiry once this committee is re-established and has time to meet and then determine its legislative or reference or policy priorities? In my mind this is not a priority. I suspect it is a priority for government, and I suspect I know the reasons why it is a priority for government. And before anyone suggests that I am a conspiracy theorist, this morning I put on record very clearly some of the issues we should be examining in relation to information technology. I talked about e-commerce. I talked about some of the issues to which Senator Campbell has just referred in the Senate.Access, equity, justice, use of the Internet, intellectual property laws, the issue of vilification and defamation—I do not see those in this motion, and they relate very closely to the idea of a regulatory framework. Maybe we should be expanding this, given that it sounds very much like the first inquiry for this committee. Maybe we should be talking about not just the illegal or offensive stuff but also about the examination of stuff that may be deemed to be vilification and the impact on our intellectual property laws. I know why it is not in there. I know why it is not deemed a priority by the mover of this motion or the government.So either we put a list of preferred or prioritised inquiries that this committee will look at over the next months, or year, or whatever the time line may be, and that includes a whole range of proposals—proposals that I suspect all parties in this chamber should be given a say in—or else we go with what I thought was the original intention of this morning's motion. That was to re-establish this committee with the express intention of finishing a report that is currently before the chair and looking at the terms of reference that are currently in operation, allowing the committee to decide what its next area of priority or research or inquiry may be. It was not to present the Senate with amended, rather dodgy looking terms of reference that have clearly decided the first reference for this committee, the first area of inquiry and one that is obviously deemed a priority for whatever reason by this government.The Democrats started from a position of very strong support this morning—probably more so than just about anyone else in this chamber, given that we have fought so long and so hard to have some kind of committee reference on technology issues—because we were instrumental in August 1997 in drafting the terms of reference that operated under the last committee, albeit with amendment and compromise—and that is appropriate; the will of the chamber is something we respect.As I said this morning, we have been very keen to get a broad range of IT and IT related issues onto the agenda—not just community standards in relation to IT and the media in general. That is what this committee seemed to examine in the last parliament. It defined IT as the `media', which I thought was an extraordinary definition. Nevertheless, it was a definition supported by Labor, Liberal and Independents so I went with the will of the committee on that one even though I felt that that committee looked into issues better examined by, say, a legal and constitutional affairs type committee. Especially in relation to privacy I felt that duplication was taking place.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Why didn't you turn up to any of the hearings last year?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Calvert knows that my views are on the record in relation to the committee. Senator Calvert also knows that the committee meetings to which he is referring were on at the same time as the Constitutional Convention. I am not suggesting that the chair or any other member is not a hard working member of the committee. I certainly paid tribute to Senator Jeannie Ferris as chair this morning because she is hard working, as Senator Harradine pointed out. That is not the issue. People's level of commitment is not the issue here; the issue is whether we establish a committee to look into information technology issues per se—not use it for any other purpose or pretend we are looking into IT issues but have a very different agenda in mind.The other issue we are debating right now is the issue of process. It is something that was touched on this morning, with good reason. Again, I thought we had reached a compromise, that we had found a solution to this problem. But I walked into this chamber to see not the amendment I anticipated, not the amendment I expected, not the amendment I thought came out of this morning's debate and discussion but something that is amended—and I believe radically amended—to include words like `illegal or offensive material published and transmitted through online services such as the Internet'. This could very well serve as a reference for this committee during its lifetime, but that is something, I thought, for the Senate or the committee members to decide at a later stage.I put on record my concerns about this process and my grave disappointment because I can just see what is going to happen to this committee and why it has been established in the first place. I hope that at some point in the future this Senate starts to take issues related to information technology seriously—not just those little sensationalist, sexy issues that people seem to focus on, but the real broader economic, social, personal and democratic issues related to IT in our society. This committee has the potential to do that—that was the exciting thing about the re-establishment of this committee and the discussion this morning. We were going to go a bit broader for a change, not just back over the work we had done—although some of it is worthy of re-evaluation or re-examination; not keep harping on the same issues but actually expand the work of the committee and expand our minds and start looking at IT and IT related issues in a little more detail.That is what parliaments across the world are doing. That is what the United States Congress is doing and that is what we should be doing. We are far behind. We are lagging behind on a lot of IT issues. That is not necessarily a reflection on individuals in this place; it is just a reflection on our parliament, perhaps our priorities, perhaps our opportunities, perhaps our level of knowledge on these issues. Let's start getting excited about these issues; let's start exploring them in a broad way—not just looking at the same tired old issues that get the newspaper headlines.If it is the will of the committee and the will of the chamber to pursue (c) of this amendment in relation to regulatory frameworks and particular material on the net, so be it, but I think we will have lost another opportunity to have broad ranging terms of reference that would allow us to look at other issues. I reiterate, I am not suggesting that that is not an important issue in itself. The Democrats have produced a lot of work and done a lot of research on this. Anyone who has read our reports and contributions to the work of this select committee and its precursor will know how much work we have done in these areas, how much written research, how many meetings we have had and how many opportunities we have had to put on record the complexities of these issues. The difficulty associated with labelling people and their views in relation to access to materials on the net or anywhere for that matter was touched on this morning by Senator Ray. There are civil libertarian considerations, issues of censorship and other issues of regulation—whether we need codes of conduct that are enforceable, whether we need regulation. More importantly—and this is something the Democrats have put on record many times before—if you want regulation, how do you do it? It is so complex. People know how difficult the Internet is to regulate.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of order. The honourable senator sought leave to speak briefly. It has now been 12 minutes.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I sought leave to speak; I did not qualify that by suggesting I would be brief. Clearly, Senator Campbell wishes it were so. It is amazing: a week is a long time in politics, but a couple of hours has been a long time today. This morning when the Democrats were onside there was no problem with Senator Stott Despoja or anyone else speaking, but as soon as we have a conflict of interest—that's it. You do not need to gag me, Senator Campbell, because I will go off to my Senate committee on the GST and examine that because—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Everyone else could come and discuss the motion—you had to grandstand.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I have addressed these terms of reference. Not only that, I am aware of terms of reference dating back not only to August 1997 but to before that. It is perfectly legitimate for me to refer to those terms of reference. I like the way we are pretending now that there is some kind of technical or mechanical motion of the Senate when we know full well not only the motivations behind this but what—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We have been discussing this for four hours outside the chamber and you want to come in here and discuss it.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Excuse me, who with?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Everybody who was interested.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Oh, come off it. Did you come to us?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—No, you did not.10000Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Campbell, would you please desist from interjecting.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Again I will take that interjection because I want to put on record that I have not been contacted by Senator Ian Campbell—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—So we've got to call you?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I have not had any contact with Senator Ian Campbell since this morning's debate. Given that Senator Campbell is moving this motion, it would have been appropriate and courteous for Senator Campbell to raise it with the other interested parties in the Senate. I wonder why he did not.If he suggests that it was last minute and the process was rushed, I accept that. I accept how this place works. But it is interesting, given that I drafted the first amendment today in relation to the terms of reference for this debate, and then said, `Okay, I won't move that because the amendment that Senator Campbell showed me in passing—flashed in front of me—seems adequate.' It was my understanding that that amendment would be moved this afternoon.I did not move to adjourn this debate this morning. I would have been happy to proceed with the debate. I would have been happy to support an amendment along the lines that Senator Ian Campbell moved or even the amendment that I was suggesting this morning. I was happy to resolve that issue. But to suggest now that I should have been knocking on Senator Ian Campbell's door to find out whether the wording of his amendment had changed is outrageous.No wonder the Democrats are angry about this. As I suggested before, when we were onside this morning we were not receiving this wrath and this level of interjection. We have every good cause to complain. The process that has been pursued this afternoon is offensive. An amendment was suggested this morning but what we have been presented with is an addition that is quite meaningful and complex.We are suggesting essentially a new and first reference for this committee, a reference that will deal specifically with illegal and offensive material on the net. I have every reason to speak to that. I have every reason, on behalf of my party and my whip in particular, to complain about the fact that we were not consulted.I would like very much to support this motion if (c) were deleted. I anticipate that that will be moved. I record again our concern. Perhaps Senator Ian Campbell, who has just compounded my anger, would like to stand up and explain why he cannot move this motion without section (c). Since he is very good at changing amendments at the drop of a hat, perhaps he could suggest an amendment to this motion so that (c) is deleted from the amendment and we can proceed as anticipated this morning.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I seek leave, if that is required, to make a brief contribution.Leave not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order No. 90, which says that the mover of a motion or a senator who has spoken in the debate may not move an amendment. I would ask you to look at that, particularly in view of the fact that I was flagging an amendment to that amendment and, due to Senator Ian Campbell's refusal to give me the opportunity to speak, will be denied that opportunity.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is the chair's belief, on advice from the clerks, that Senator Ian Campbell sought leave, the matter was debated and that was it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I would like to raise another point of order. Senator Ian Campbell sought leave to move an amendment which circumvented a restriction in the standing orders. I sought leave to move an amendment to that amendment, but was refused leave by Senator Ian Campbell. He was given leave by me, but I was not given leave by him.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is one of the forms of the Senate. If you were not given leave, you were not given leave.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Do you think that is fair? Do you think I should give leave to Senator Ian Campbell further in the day when he seeks leave of me?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, it is not a question of being fair; there is no point of order. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Ian Campbell's ) be agreed to.16:32:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)50Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous331116:36:003311Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move: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.I have brought this general business motion before the Senate today in response to serious concerns raised by residents, providers and employees in the aged care sector about the emerging crisis in the sector. Those concerns, some of which are contained in the motion today, describe a pattern of behaviour on the part of the government in relation to aged care that reveals the government's total inability to come to terms with the problems confronting the sector. Many of the concerns that have been raised with me stem from the so-called government reforms that were rushed through in 1996-97. We are now dealing with the results of the hasty implementation of badly constructed policy amended under strong public pressure. We should not forget that the primary purpose of those government reforms was to slash $480 million from the aged care sector.There are also now widespread concerns about the inability of the current minister, Minister Bishop, to deal with the many issues that have arisen from that initial rush to reform the sector. It seems that the minister is so intent on avoiding becoming the third minister to lose the job as a result of the government's aged care reforms that she has adopted the strategy of doing as little as possible in the hope that this will minimise the number of mistakes that she will make.The combination of the government's initial ill-considered rush to slash funding to the sector and introduce changes, followed by a strategy of inaction by the current minister, has left the sector in a highly precarious position. It is important to remember that there are approximately 150,000 people residing in residential aged care facilities and thousands more receiving community based aged care services. The government's policies in this area have the potential to impact directly on the lives of hundreds of thousands of older Australians and indirectly on the lives of many of their relatives. The quality of the care and services provided to older Australians is a matter of vital public importance.I do not need to dwell on the history of the so-called reform process. The fiasco of the accommodation bonds was graphic proof of the government's hasty and badly constructed response to the capital funding needs of the aged care sector. Who can forget the Prime Minister's total humiliation as he reversed government policy while appearing on A Current Affair? That announcement resulted in the accommodation charges that residents now have to pay. It is not surprising that a hasty backflip to a badly constructed policy has not proved effective in dealing with the issue of capital funding in the aged care sector.At the recent Senate estimates, the department admitted that the accommodation charge will raise only $84 million in 1998-99 and $112 million in 1999-2000. These amounts are woefully short of the money needed across the aged care sector to improve and upgrade nursing homes and hostels, particularly in the lead-up to the January 2001 deadline for those facilities to gain certification.A report to be released shortly, I suspect, will show that billions of dollars are needed to meet the capital needs of the sector. Providers have made the valid point that the accommodation charge, in delivering small ongoing amounts, is inappropriate given the large up-front costs required for capital improvement. It is looking increasingly likely that a large number of aged care facilities—135 have currently failed to gain certification—will be forced to close their doors in January 2001 because they have simply been unable to raise the funds needed to make improvements to their facilities.Many of these facilities are operating in rural and remote regions where there are already insufficient aged care services, as identified in the recent audit report on aged care. In many of these areas, there is only one aged care facility. If that closes, people will be forced to leave the area where their families and friends live. Having set the 2001 deadline for accreditation, this government has done nothing to assist providers to meet the standards that will be required.It is also important to note that, in the recent Senate estimates hearings, the department admitted that providers are under no obligation to spend the amounts raised by the accommodation charge on improving their facilities. Within the industry, there are providers who are using the money so raised by the accommodation charge to meet recurrent expenses. In many cases, the use of the funds for this purpose has been forced on providers because of the $480 million that the government cut from the sector in the 1996-97 budget. They are living on the funds that have supposedly been raised to meet their capital needs. There are a minority of providers who are pocketing the accommodation charge and the Commonwealth concessional resident supplement—doing nothing to improve the quality of their facilities—and they will simply sell their licence when the 2001 deadline arrives.It is scandalous that the very measure the government introduced to meet the capital needs of the sector, however insufficient, is not guaranteed to go towards those capital needs. The government has not made a compulsory link between the payment of those funds and the direction of those funds towards provision of the capital needs of the sector. As a result of all of the government's changes, the quality of many facilities in the sector has declined. Providers want to upgrade their facilities but simply do not have the funds to do so. Ultimately, aged care residents will suffer because of this government's incompetence. These problems will become acute as the 2001 deadline approaches and facilities close down and services to many areas are restricted.The government's policy on capital funding arrangements in the sector is just one example of how it rushed into a complex issue and now has no idea how to respond to the problems that it has created. Almost all providers I have spoken to have remarked how they have suffered under the sheer number of changes the sector has endured over the last two years. There was little or no consultation with industry on the potential impact of many of these changes and how they might be best implemented. As a result of this approach, in the middle of last year—days after the proposal to coalesce nursing home subsidies was to be implemented, and following last minute pressure from the industry—the government agreed not to go ahead with that change. The minister called for a Productivity Commission inquiry into the proposal. Here was another of the flawed reforms announced in 1996-97 being reconsidered under industry pressure and the logic of the argument.It is interesting that the interim report of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into this issue found:Under the proposal, the quality of care would adjust up or down to fit the income stream provided by resident charges and the arbitrarily determined national subsidy rate. In the Commission's view, it is inappropriate to treat the quality of care as the residual balancing item.That is, the quality of care in some states, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, would suffer markedly as a result of this simplistic approach to the funding of nursing homes. The government is focused purely on the cost of the services it provides, not the quality of care and the quality of services delivered to aged care residents in this country.Even the Productivity Commission, not known as a particularly radical or necessarily caring organisation, has found that those government reforms would be totally inappropriate because they would downgrade care. That, of course, was only the interim report. I cannot share with the Senate what was contained in the final report of the Productivity Commission to the government because the government has failed to release it. The government, through the Treasurer, has had a copy of that report since 13 January this year—over 10 weeks ago—and we have not had one word from the government about what recommendations are contained in it, what its response might be or when we might hope to have a copy released publicly. This represents just another uncertainty that has been forced on the sector in dealing with this government. They need to know what is in the Productivity Commission report and they need to know how the government is going to respond—the industry needs certainty and decisions from this government.Mr Acting Deputy President, you do not have to take the word of the opposition that the government's reforms are bad policy. The current minister's predecessor, Mr Warwick Smith, informed the industry in a letter last year that:. . . mistakes were made in the policy prescription adopted over our first term in Government.That letter, sent in the immediate lead-up to the last election, went on to give a series of commitments to the industry to address a number of problems that had become increasingly apparent in the sector. Before discussing some of those commitments I note that, as I understand it, none of them have actually been acted upon by the government. I am not sure whether those commitments met the same fate as Warwick Smith or whether the government does intend, at some stage, to honour them.The commitments included a promise that, if re-elected, the government would examine ways of providing further capital funding support. The former minister also gave a commitment to make changes to the arrangements for phasing out the previous grants given to providers. These commitments are an admission by the then minister responsible that, as of late last year, the government's solution for funding capital improvements in the aged care sector was not working. Another commitment given by the minister in that letter concerned residents in nursing homes prior to 1 October 1997. That commitment would have guaranteed that this group of residents would not be subject to the accommodation charge should they be forced to move to a new nursing home. This has become an issue where a home closes, or wards are closed, and the residents are forced to transfer to a new facility. As a result, these people are classified as new residents, are caught under the new system and are required to pay the $12 a day accommodation charge.A number of constituents have written to me and other Labor members of parliament raising their concerns about their treatment in this way. There are approximately 4,000 residents who are potentially affected by this anomaly. At the time the change was introduced, the Prime Minister gave an assurance that existing residents would not be affected by the changed funding arrangements. It seems that this was, again, another non-core promise. Despite the assurance, constituents are writing to me about their parents who were in a home before 1 October 1997 being forced to pay the accommodation charge after their existing home was closed and they were forced to transfer to another home. In some cases, a provider has built a new facility and then transferred all the residents to the new building, enabling them to charge the fee to those residents. I know the government has been aware of this issue for some time, but it has taken no action to protect the interests of those residents affected. It is a clear breach of the Prime Minister's undertaking and it is a clear mistreatment of those aged Australians. The government must act to rectify that problem.Industry is getting used to delays in decision making by this government. The current minister appears intent on doing as little as possible for as long as possible in the hope that this will increase her chances of surviving the portfolio that has become such a graveyard for Liberal Party ministers. Two ministers have already sacrificed their careers to the government's failed aged care reforms. This minister does not want to become the third. While her strategy might succeed if she had to last only a few months, she surely cannot hope to get through the next three years without making a decision or dealing with the very serious problems that exist in the industry. If she continues to pursue this strategy, aged care will slip further and further into crisis.Late last year the government put forward a bill that would allow the Standards and Accreditation Agency to charge fees for accrediting facilities. At the time, the government was eager to push the bill through to allow the agency to begin the massive task of accrediting the 3,000 residential aged care facilities before the January 2001 deadline. That bill was passed on 2 December 1998. It is almost four months later and the minister still has not finalised the schedule of fees that has to be tabled in this chamber. The deadline for accreditation was always going to be very tight, but now it is looking increasingly unrealistic. The minister has just wasted four months because she does not seem to be able to make up her mind about how much to charge facilities for accreditation. We are told that at the time the bill was proposed, a draft schedule of fees had already been prepared.This is not the only issue on which the minister has procrastinated over decisions to the point where the sector suffers. I will mention another few from a very long list. The minister is still to finalise the new certification instrument, which was due to be finalised last September. Until this document is finalised, providers are uncertain as to what standards they should be building to, which is further hampering the improvement of facilities in the sector.The minister has not released the initial report of the two-year review of the government's aged care reforms. This review will provide valuable information in assessing the impact of the government's reforms. The six-monthly reports of the review should be made public to allow residents, providers and employers to make their own assessments of the success or otherwise of the reforms. The minister has also delayed the provision of growth funding for HACC to New South Wales. These grants should have been finalised late last year, but HACC service providers have been left in limbo because the minister will not sign off on these funds. She has of course attempted to blame the New South Wales government for the delay.It is difficult to give due consideration to all the issues in aged care in the time available. There are so many problems building in the sector that are not being addressed. My colleagues who will follow in the debate will be addressing some of those, and I appreciate the contributions they are going to make. It is important that this chamber, this parliament and the government start to face up to the very real problems that are emerging as a result of the government's so-called aged care reforms. Every day another problem, another anomaly, emerges from the Aged Care Act. The government seems unwilling to confront those issues, unwilling to take the necessary action to provide leadership and certainty to the industry in resolving those issues.These problems have the potential to see a decline in the quality of care for many residents and growing inequities in the system. The minister is compounding these problems by failing to address them. The minister is required to provide the leadership to address these issues and bring certainty and coherence to the aged care sector. She seems unwilling to do so at this stage. The longer the minister procrastinates, the worse the problems get, the worse the funding issue will become and the greater the decline in quality and choice available to Australians requiring aged care will become. The minister has shown complete disinterest in working cooperatively with the sector to address the many problems in the system that her government has created.It is important that we bring these issues to the attention of the government. It is important that the government responds in a positive and constructive way. Unless it does so, we will see a serious decline in the quality of aged care provided in this country.16:54:003315Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The motion before us, put by Senator Evans on behalf of the Labor Party, really is a cruel and disparaging attack on the 20 per cent of aged Australians who use aged care services. Senator Evans is opportunistic in the extreme—scaremongering the aged when his efforts would be better placed comforting and alleviating them in retirement. It pays to look carefully at the motion he has put forward and the speech that he just gave, which did not get down to addressing the issues of people or human points of view.Before looking at the details of Senator Evans's motion, we should begin by asking: what are the problems for this current generation of aged Australians? Why, after 13 years of Labor Party rule in federal government, are we now standing here in this place debating a series of very negative points put by Labor which are certainly not in the best interests of the aged? Essentially, those aged 60 and over have inherited the economic legacy of Labor in government—that period from 1983 to 1996. If you were 45 years of age and had a housing mortgage in 1983 when Labor came to government, you certainly would have paid dearly throughout Labor's reign in the form of astronomically high interest rates—peaking at around 17 to 18 per cent. So while Labor mauled and abused the economy, who are the people who paid? What generation of Australians felt those effects? These people are now beginning to plan their retirement, as are many others who have moved into the retirement age and have been affected by that generation of Labor's administration.I find it curious that Senator Evans should find it appropriate to move the motion he has here today, because Senator Evans and his party are directly responsible for undermining the security of aged Australians, and for that they should be condemned. What did 13 years of Labor mismanagement right across the board do to superannuation? What did it do to retirement investments? What did it do to health care? There is no acceptance of responsibility for an entire generation of very important economics—for all of these exacerbating problems that Senator Evans would have us believe our aged Australians now face. This motion is hypocritical. It is nothing more than a dot-by-dot reference of Labor's guilt file, attempting to shift their 13 years of mismanagement onto the Howard government.Three years into the Howard-Fischer government, we are wrestling to address a number of hard issues for the people affected—for the aged people of Australia. We have to cover Labor's legacy. We have turned the economy around and we have fortified Australia to such an extent that we have been able to weather the Asian economic crisis and stand in good stead to prosper as a regional leader. We have given back security and cash advantages to families, who now feel it. We have shifted the focus of government back to regional and remote Australia. We will be putting in place a strong, robust tax system designed to meet our national needs. This last point also involves implementation of a workable Commonwealth, state and territory financial arrangement which will see the states better resourced to meet the needs of their aged residents.I invite Senator Evans and others so critical in this debate to go to the various policy documents of the Liberal-National Party coalition and also of the Labor Party. Take a good look at our document Older Australians under health and family services. Part A refers to tax reform for older Australians. In part B, which refers to carers, we say that we will allocate $80 million over four years to expand community based respite care options for carers of people with dementia. I refer in that particular regard to yesterday's announcement by Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, of $100 million for Australian carers. The effect of that will be that 14,000 carers of adult relatives will qualify for assistance for the first time, at a cost of $92 million over four years. Under `Residential and aged care', we address the issue in real stark policy terms. We say:Planning arrangements for aged care places will be reviewed to deliver more flexibility to local communities and better recognise the geographic and demographic realities of rural and regional Australia.In part D, `Older people living in rural and regional Australia', we say that we will provide rural transaction centres and reinstate and set up better Medicare Ezyclaim facilities by providing additional resources to regional health services. Under our policy, we have instituted the International Year of Older Persons. The other policy issues refer to healthy lifestyles for older Australians and building safer communities for older Australians and older job seekers. They are stark and very worthwhile policy points to look at.If you turn to the Labor Party document, it is basically a regurgitation of past criticisms and sins and looks at areas which really can reflect on only their own administration. They wrote this a year or two after losing office and they accepted no blame or responsibility for any of the issues. If you turn to the last couple of pages, they come out with a few policies with respect to trying to capitalise on nursing homes issues that were current last year and talking about pension increases, which is always fashionable in an election period.It is important that we turn now and have a look at those issues that are addressed in Senator Chris Evans's motion—a motion in about eight or 10 parts which is nothing more than a series of dot points on which he has sought to score points. Let us take a look at it. The first point he raised was failure to provide capital funding. What did Labor do? They withdrew capital funding over their period in office. They commissioned and then ignored the Gregory report. All Labor was interested in was to deliberately scare older Australians. I think that is what has come through again in today's debate.By comparison, Prime Minister Howard's plan to improve the capital flow into the sector is now paying dividends. This week in the Sydney Morning Herald there was evidence that Commonwealth policies are working. There is significant interest by organisations in injecting funds into the aged care industry. The second point raised is with regard to equitable access to care. Labor failed to meet residential care targets that it even set itself. The National Audit Office reported that there was a drop in the number of residential aged care services over the last 10 years of Labor administration, and certainly Labor ignored the bush. Under Labor, there were 16 multipurpose services provided; there are now 42, and another 24 are planned. Under Labor, the safety net for these people was very weak.We have redressed those inequities between states and regions. We have paid particular attention where it is important, at raising the level of aged care places in particular areas, and we have increased the range of aged care and health services to people living in rural and remote Australia. This government cares about older Australians and cares particularly about their residential care situations and the financial issues that so importantly arise from those areas.On the issue of viability of aged care facilities in rural and remote regions, again in Labor's period there was nothing but a complex set of confusing funding supplements in nursing homes only. It is important to look at what the government has done. We have extended this supplement to also cover hostels. The viability supplement is targeted at facilities in rural and remote areas with a weighting given to small facilities. Certainly, we make these arrangements with extensive consultation. In particular, rural hostels are now funded for the care needs of their residents and the government has a $10 million capital program. Facilities in rural and remote areas are a special target. That makes a nonsense of the point in Senator Chris Evans's motion.The fourth point alleged a failure of the Commonwealth government to address the wage disparity issue of nursing staff. The government is still working within the framework set. Labor put in a new indexation method which does not tie the indexation to wage movements that Labor's 1995 decision shifted to safety net adjustments only. The government has removed inefficient bureaucratic barriers to the funding system to enable workplace agreements and improved work practices where staff could share the benefits. The coalition government's reforms have seen an extra $160 million per year for recruitment funding and this has been confirmed by an independent review.There were a number of issues that Senator Chris Evans related to Minister Bishop, including the setting of accreditation fees. The government has put in place a rigorous process to ensure the best outcomes. The fee is certainly not to be a tax and the rate that will be set will be fair. This will again be done very carefully. We have asked a consultant to work with the accreditation agency to advise on a fee structure that is both fair and equitable.The principles are being drafted. It is expected that they will be before both houses of parliament shortly after Easter. Under Labor, poor quality nursing homes were allowed to get away with giving poor quality care for too long. We will no longer tolerate poor care for frail older Australians.Funding for HACC services is important. Sometimes in this area it is very important to look at what is going on, particularly in New South Wales, where there has been a media and correspondence exchange between Minister Bishop and the New South Wales Labor government which has not picked up many of the issues in those areas. Older people and people with disabilities in New South Wales missed out on $15 million worth of HACC funding because the Carr government failed to match the Commonwealth's offer in the first two years of the Carr government. This was a total of over $12.7 million which would have paid for 5.6 million meals on wheels, almost 400,000 hours of community nursing or more than 450,000 hours of home help. By comparison, Victoria has had no trouble meeting the requirements. The Commonwealth spends more than $500 million on home and community care each year to help frail older people, people with disabilities and carers, and we have increased HACC funding by five per cent.On the issue that Senator Evans raised with regard to certification, we are very concerned about improving the standards of residential care buildings. Labor totally ignored this problem. Contrary to what Senator Evans has alleged in his speech, the new certification instrument was approved on 3 March. It is now being printed and will be sent out after Easter. This will give the industry certainty. The instrument has strong endorsement from industry and consumer groups. Again, the government is setting standards, requiring poor nursing homes—Labor's legacy—to come up to scratch, giving them a strategic 10-year plan and directions and certainty for building and upgrading.Senator Evans wrongly made the point that additional recurrent funding payments will become certified. Prior to the election, the government undertook to introduce an arrangement whereby service providers could receive capital transition payments for residents living in the home prior to 1 October 1997 and access accommodation payments. On 11 December 1998, Minister Bishop sent a fax to service providers confirming the change. Under the new scheme, nursing homes will be able to be certified and also seek accommodation charges from new residents or concessional supplements in respect of eligible residents. The capital transition payments will taper down over time as the number of new residents increases. The department is currently developing the arrangements to introduce this change. Industry groups are being consulted in the process. Again, where is Senator Evans getting his information?With regard to the two-year review, it is important to note that a summary of Professor Gray's first six-monthly progress report on the review was released on 18 March, and we have written to the stakeholders to advise them of this. The report is now available from Mrs Bishop and the department. The report details outcomes, particularly as a result of the round of discussions that have been held. Over 500 people with a good knowledge of aged care were consulted in 50 focus groups in 17 locations throughout rural and metropolitan Australia. They certainly identified that the reform—improvements in standards of care, residents' contributions to the cost of their care according to their ability to pay et cetera—was necessary. This gave us a clear message that the industry was very much in need of reform and that it was time the government took action—not inaction and decline as happened under Labor. The review confirms our commitment to increasing the quality of care for individual older Australians. This is very important.With regard to the Productivity Commission reports, the commission handed the final report to the Treasurer on 13 January, and this report is due to be released very shortly. There will be a period of consultation and consideration, after which the government will make decisions on the report.Labor's record was that they were locked in state differences. That remains the case today, because they are obviously locked in their thinking. They had 13 years in which they slashed capital funding, failed to keep pace with the ageing population and failed to take action against poor quality homes. They left behind a funding system for nursing homes which was totally out of date. Labor knew when it was in government that Australia was ageing, and it took no action.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—That's not true.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I am sorry, but your record speaks for itself. You have not been in the chamber listening for long. Labor certainly left aged care in a mess. That particular point is very important. There are, of course, a lot of groups in the community that are in consultation with Minister Bishop and with the government. They are very pleased with the record and with the involvement and the consultations that are taking place. Let me just give you one endorsement from Eldercare, a major religious and charitable provider in South Australia:Few can complain about the changes that have resulted from the process of aged care reform. The outcomes for Eldercare have been significant and we are now in the best financial position we have been in for several years. The new resident classification system is reflecting and funding the resident mix that we have always had but struggled with because the old classification system had long passed its use-by date. Across our 640 nursing home and hostel residents this produces additional government care related subsidies estimated at $2 million per annum. Over 80 per cent of this has been spent on additional staff.These are clear endorsements of the government's program and policies for aged Australians. We should look at what the real priorities are, what they are being given and what they were not given by Labor during its particular term in office. I note that Senator Evans did not use the total 20 minutes speaking time that was allocated to him. In fact, he fell five minutes short. Again, this is indicative of the priority he gives to such an important area. He ran out of puff on this particular issue. He cannot spare five minutes to add to his own motion on such an important issue. Those aged Australians that Senator Evans claims to represent are, indeed, very poorly represented.By comparison, Minister Bishop and the Prime Minister have indicated this government's priority in the area of aged care by appointing a very competent administration. Mrs Bishop is in constant contact with all of thess groups within the portfolio and is achieving results. Senator Evans's motion is a pathetic contribution, particularly in this, the International Year of Older Persons. As always, the ALP is looking backwards and not to the future.17:14:003319Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Over the past couple of years the Democrats have been very careful to distance themselves from much of what the ALP have had to say when it comes to aged care, although I have to admit that the statements that we are concerned about were made mostly in another place. We have had to do this because much of what was said, particularly in relation to controversial issues such as accommodation bonds, we would seriously question. A great many statements made by the opposition over the past couple of years have had the effect of preying on the emotional vulnerability of elderly people in order to score political points. Some statements have, unfortunately, borne little resemblance to the truth.Having said that, on behalf of the Democrats I would like to speak in support of some aspects of the motion which is before the Senate today. I want to make it very clear that I may not agree with everything that opposition senators say in support of this motion. However, I can support many aspects of what is put before us.The Democrats have long highlighted the desperate need residential aged care facilities have for increased capital funding. What we believe is needed is a policy package which is considered, consistent, coordinated and has some long-term vision. Without this, the future viability of residential aged care in this country simply cannot be guaranteed. Neither the coalition's current aged care package nor the Labor Party's pre-election promise to abolish all nursing home fees and provide a mere $500 million to the sector over three years is going to provide the funding which is so desperately needed.In 1994 the Gregory report, which was commissioned by the former Labor government, estimated that approximately $1 billion in today's figures was needed just to get the existing nursing home stock up to scratch. The report highlighted the poor physical condition of nursing home infrastructure, including the fact that a number of aged care facilities did not even meet basic fire standards and a number of others were skating very close to the edge.Despite the government's efforts, little has really happened to change the situation since 1994 and, unless something is done, it is likely only to get worse. Things are likely to get worse, because Australia has a rapidly ageing population. It is predicted that, by the year 2051, 22 per cent of the population will be over 65 years of age and nearly 11 per cent will be over 75 years of age.The Democrats acknowledge that the coalition has attempted to address the shortfall in funding for residential aged care facilities during its first term in government. It did this initially by introducing a number of reforms, including its controversial nursing home entry fees. The Democrats supported these proposals, because nobody, including the Labor Party, had ever been able to come up with an alternative and because we understood the urgent need the aged care sector had to raise additional capital.After successfully negotiating with the government a number of added protections for elderly Australians, the Democrats believed we had something we could live with. But I have to say that we were disappointed when the government dumped a great deal of its package after the opposition's huge scare campaign which preyed on the emotional vulnerability of elderly Australians.When considering this motion, none of us should ever forget that the ALP had 13 years when they were in government to address the problems in residential aged care. But they did not do so in any adequate sense. Now, as a result of the government's backflip on aged care policy, we have ended up with a watered-down, user pays based policy which is a long way short of providing a solution to these problems. While many aged care providers now say they think the current system may provide the capital they require in the long term—they say perhaps 10 to 15 years—it will provide little relief in the short term. I understand that the time the government had initially projected for when all the facilities would have to be up to standard has really had to be extended, simply because the reality is that it will be impossible for all of the aged care facilities to ever meet that standard.What I want to know is: what is the government going to do to assist facilities in need of upgrading to meet the standards set down for certification in the meantime? I urge the government to consider the possibility of offering these facilities some kind of loan to help them to undertake the work they require. I really cannot see any other way of funding the upgrades which are needed.The Democrats believe that any future proposals which are designed to change the way the current residential aged care arrangements operate must be carefully weighed up against the impact they will have on elderly people's ability to access high quality residential care and against the long-term financial viability of the sector. These must always be the highest priorities in devising aged care policy.Protecting the viability of aged care facilities in rural and remote regions is something which is particularly close to my heart and something which was highlighted in the Productivity Commission's interim report, which was released late last year. A few places I have been to discuss these issues, apart from major cities up and down the coast, include Emerald, Jericho and Dalby in Queensland, Wellington and Dubbo in New South Wales, and some towns in Victoria. The issue is always the same: how are towns in these areas to access the funds they need with a much lower revenue base and ability to raise funds, and how are they to get help on a user pays basis from people in their towns? I would be interested to hear whether the government has any strategies for ensuring that aged people in remote areas will be, in the government's own words, `able to grow old in the place where they have spent all of their lives'. That is very important to them.The Democrats would also like to hear if the government has any plans for addressing the wage disparity for nursing staff that exists between the acute and aged care sectors. This is something which is often raised with us. It is important to note that this disparity is one which is actually getting worse, not better. I think we need to ask ourselves some serious questions about why nursing staff working in the aged care sector are currently so undervalued in comparison to those working in other areas. In fact, in some ways there seems to be almost a stigma attached to nurses who work for any length of time in the aged care sector—as though, somehow or other, they are not of the same standard as nurses working in other medical facilities.The Democrats would also like to know when we are going to see a concrete proposal on the level of fees that facilities will have to pay to be accredited. It seems like a long time since we passed the bill to facilitate the charging of fees last year. Surely it is now time to get some hard, cold figures on the table. Not knowing what the accreditation process will cost is causing aged care providers a degree of stress, simply because it makes it difficult for them to plan for the future. I urge the government to tell us what they are doing in relation to this matter.In relation to funding for HACC services, I want to put on the record that the Democrats strongly support more community based services and programs. We would like to see an immediate boost in funding for the Home and Community Care program. In fact, that is the only way that the government will be able to fulfil its promise, which is to provide for people to be able to stay in their own homes, because people will not be able to do so without the kind of support that Home and Community Care and domiciliary nursing programs are able to give them.Another problem, which I must declare an interest in because I have a wife who is a registered nurse and works in an aged care institution, is the excessive paperwork associated with the RCS. My wife constantly tells me that she is so busy doing care plans and filling in forms—1X4WESTSenator West—All paper care and no patient care.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—That is what she tells me, and she would like to get back to some nursing.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—The ALP introduced it.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—No, you changed it, Senator Herron, and it has got worse. It was bad under the ALP, but unfortunately it has not improved as the government had promised. The reports I get are that it has got worse. I think that the government do want to solve that problem, but they have not; and we have got to solve it as quickly as possible. That is an issue that I throw out for the government's attention. I do not want to be cynical, but sometimes I do wonder whether the resident classification scale is there to help us get appropriate care at the different levels that are needed or whether it is there sometimes to put a cap on the funding. I am not cynical, I suppose, but I do tend to get a bit cynical when I see what is happening.The Democrats also urge the government to release without delay the two-year review of the aged care reforms—a review which ended in January—and the Productivity Commission's report into nursing home funding, a report which was completed on 13 January. I think I heard the minister give assurances that both of those will be available very shortly, and that is pleasing.In conclusion, the Democrats firmly believe that any future changes to the current aged care system and any finetuning of the current aged care package must be done in consultation with the aged care sector. Again, let me compliment the minister for describing the consultation process which is taking place. That is absolutely essential. That is the only way to ensure that we finally end up with a system that will work and be sustainable as Australia's population ages.17:26:003321West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I will open my contribution to the debate on Senator Chris Evans's motion by declaring an interest of 18 years nursing experience and membership of the two colleges of nursing in this country. I know that by the time I have finished the people who follow me are going to say, `There she goes scaremongering. She doesn't know what she is talking about.' I have to say that I do have some knowledge and therefore some right to enter into this debate. Certainly, the contacts that I have are my peers that are still within the profession: they are my sources of information. I can remember what it was like 20 and 30 years ago in the aged care area.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—It has changed.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—It changed. My word, it changed for the better. But what is happening now is that it is changing back to what it was before former Senator Giles's report in 1984. You want to have a read of that report. That is the sort of thing that we are heading back to. As we heard last night from Senator Gibbs, in Queensland the Churches of Christ are having a rearrangement of some of their institutions. They are basically getting rid of their enrolled nurses and their assistants in nursing and they will have health care workers and aged-care workers. And what are the qualifications that are required for aged-care workers?ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Making money for Doug Moran.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Senator Quirke, I think that your comment may not be totally factual, but it does certainly highlight a number of points. It can be about making money, or it could be about the fact that this government is actually winding back the amount of money available for nursing care. That is what keeps the patients well; it is what keeps their skin whole and entire and without blemishes and keeps their health status good. They are cutting back on that, it would appear; because aged-care workers are cheaper and they also have no need to have qualifications.Let me remind people of what it was like 20 and 30 years ago. This is from the experience of my peers and colleagues in the industry. As registered nurses, they would go to work on an afternoon shift, often on a weekend, to discover that they had one or two new staff who were there as assistants. All of these people had to be shown, on the job, what to do and how to care for the patients. So not only was the registered nursed providing the care but she was also providing the education for the other staff that were with her. On a number of occasions it has happened to my colleagues that the person they were training—and the trainee may only last couple of days—would tell them that they had answered an ad for a job that morning for an immediate start as a cook or a cleaner, but because somebody had got there before them and had been given the job as the cook or the cleaner, they had been talked into being a care assistant to work with a registered nurse. That is what used to happen. People would wander in off the street and be given a job.If we move down this path before us that is what will happen. There is no guarantee that a registered nurse or an enrolled nurse or an assistant in nursing will be employed. This is a major concern for anybody who is in the health care industry. This is not just about having the right number of bodies there, this is about the standard of the delivery of care that is given to people in nursing homes. The level of acuteness of patients in nursing homes these days has risen quite significantly.In the days when I was nursing, anybody who was sick in a nursing home with things such as pneumonia, or who required a blood transfusion or any other acute care, was immediately transferred to the nearest acute hospital. These days, these procedures are being undertaken in nursing homes. I am told by people who are professionals in the area, with expertise, that blood transfusions are quite common and that they are even doing things such as hyperalimentation and dialysis. Nowhere 20 or 30 years ago would they even have considered doing things like that in nursing homes. Those procedures are now being carried out in these institutions. As the number of people with dementia increases in institutions, it becomes much better for the delivery of their care that they be kept in the same institution, in the same environment with the same carers. As I said, the level of acuteness of patients is increasing.I have spoken to directors of nursing who have told me that they have had patients back in the nursing home some 24 or 48 hours after the patient has had surgery in an acute hospital on the fractured neck of their femur. This requires a high level of care as it is high dependency. Sure, the RCS will accommodate that, but what will not accommodate it is inadequately trained staff. You need more than just one registered nurse and an aged-care worker. You need people with enrolled nurse qualifications and assistant in nursing experience to be able to support and deliver that care.We were also told by Senator Gibbs last night that the Churches of Christ in Hervey Bay and Maryborough are saying that the registered nurses will not be expected to take a lead role. I am wondering where we are going in terms of the legal responsibilities here and in terms of negligence. There is a duty of care owed to residents, and that duty of care is expected to be carried out by the average registered nurse or the average enrolled nurse or the average assistant in nursing. We do not know what the standards are for the average aged-care worker. It will not be the parliament that decides what the standards are; it will be a court of law that decides. The court of law will decide that the owner or the proprietor or the manager of that nursing home has a duty of care.If something happens, and they are found derelict in that duty, they will be two parts down the path to being negligent. If there is damage to the patient, and if there is a direct cause of that damage, the nursing home will be negligent and so too could be the person who has provided that care if they have not been adequately trained. If the people providing the care have not got adequate training that is not an excuse. It will be judged and the people in the witness box will be expert witnesses who will be attesting to what should be the average quality of care that is provided to patients.I warn people to think very carefully about this and I warn the government, because I think the government has left some loopholes in its legislation. The booklet it put out last year said that `the care may be carried out by a registered nurse'. I warn people to be very careful because there are legal ramifications in all of this. If the employer, the owner, is not providing adequately trained staff, they will be held negligent. We will find that out when we end up in coroners courts. If you are not going to have adequately trained staff, as we see is going to happen in Hervey Bay and Maryborough, you will end up with people in coroners courts, and that is a sad indictment.The other thing that people need to remember is that we are 20 or 30 years on with improvements in nursing homes and aged care. The community is a lot more litigious now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, so take that as a warning. I am gravely concerned about these changes and this erosion of the standard of care that is being delivered to patients. When all else fails, the standard of care for patients has to be the primary consideration. This change being mooted by the Churches of Christ is putting in danger, or destroying, the career paths for a number of enrolled nurses in particular. More and more these days, because of the increasing technology and the increasing complexity that is required in the provision of health care—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Four people took voluntary retirement and the others were transferred.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Senator Herron, you know as well as I about the need to maintain our practice standards so that we can maintain registration. These people will lose their rights to practice and their licence to practice. As with your profession, nurses are now having to keep their practice current. I would not be able to go back and practice in a hospital.RF4COOKSenator Cook—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: undoubtedly Senator Herron—as a surgeon—is envious of nurses speaking out about conditions in hospitals, but he has been a persistent interjector during the course of this speech. He has an opportunity to be heard in this chamber and to be accorded the respect of being heard in silence. He is a responsible minister and knows that he is out of order by interjecting. I would ask you to advise him as a minister to be quiet and hear the contribution of Senator West.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—On the point of order: I hold nurses in the very highest regard; in fact six of my daughters did nursing. I have a very high regard for every nurse in Australia for the vocation that they hold. However, I respect Senator Cook's point of order and I will keep quiet.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—I thank all senators. Let us try and enable that to continue throughout the remainder of the debate.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Thank you. I am glad that Senator Herron did interject because that just raises concerns with me about the fact that I thought that he, of all people, would have understood the need to have highly qualified and specialised nurses in the area that he works in, which is surgery—just the same as people in aged care deserve the same levels of care. This is the introduction—the first signs that we are seeing—of the downgrading in the mind of this government of the standing of those who provide aged care in this country.This government is to be condemned for the attempted downgrading of the qualifications of people providing care. Allowing that to happen is appalling, and I have actually warned in the past that that could potentially happen through this legislation. Now we are seeing it happen, so I have been vindicated on that particular point. It is a disgusting thing; it shows a lack of care but it probably relates to the fact that these institutions are not getting adequate funding from the government because there is so much paperwork to be done. They are not getting adequate funding to undertake all of this, and this is the only way that the proprietors of nursing homes are actually able to cope.The other area that I would like to touch on is the preliminary work that is being done by the New South Wales Nurses Association. It is a study that is unpublished at this stage, and it is going to be done over two years. But we certainly have evidence that they have been able to provide me with that indicates that the impact since the introduction of this act has been quite marked on institutions and aged care facilities.Nursing groups have been told by the government that aged care funding will increase by 10 per cent. But this survey indicates—as I said, it is unpublished and it is preliminary—that only 4.5 per cent of the respondents believed personal care and nursing hours had increased as a result of new funding arrangements introduced under the act and that 42.5 per cent believed the new funding arrangements had led to reduced hours and changes in skill mixes. The information that has been received in this ongoing survey reveals that more than 40 per cent of aged care nurses have noted an increase in requests to perform work not directly related to care over the last 12 months. More than a third of respondents noted a reduction in the number of registered nurses employed in their particular facility over the same period of time and 32 per cent said there had been a reduction in the number of enrolled nurses. This bears out what is happening in another state.More than half the respondents said there had been a reduction in the standard of care and 59 per cent noted a reduction in the number of overall care hours over the last year. That probably bears out Senator Woodley's point about his wife's experience of spending more time on doing paperwork than on doing nursing care. Fifty-six per cent believed they did not have the resources necessary to enable them to provide an acceptable standard of nursing care. Almost two-thirds claimed their workload had increased significantly over the last 12 months. Almost 40 per cent believed current staffing levels placed the occupational health and safety of nursing staff at risk. One-third of staffers claimed the risk had increased significantly.You are going to see that blow out even more if you do not have properly trained staff. People coming in off the street will not know how to lift properly, how to manoeuvre the machines that are used for lifting or how to use the equipment and will therefore be a greater risk to themselves and to the patient. This is just the sort of thing this government said would not happen, and it is now becoming quite evident that it is happening. The nurses are also saying that they are undertaking increased unpaid overtime.We have also had the story of a hostel being left understaffed. When a woman went to visit her mother there, she and other visitors actually ended up having to support the nurse that was on duty because she was feeling so stressed by the level of workload that had been placed upon her shoulders. Another person in the same place complained because her mother had been left stark naked for 45 minutes because somebody had been called away. These are all examples of the provision of poor care to patients, and I think that the government has to stand condemned. It was warned that these things would happen but it has chosen to ignore that warning and this is now happening.I also have concerns about what is happening in rural areas because I am being told more and more by institutions in those areas that if they are small their viability is really in danger. There is also an anomaly in the Aged Care Act, which is affecting people in rural areas. I notice that there is an adviser in the box. I presume that the adviser has seen the letter from Ms Sue Irvine from Southern Cross Homes in Broken Hill, because it is in the article that has appeared in the Barrier Daily Truth of Friday, 12 March. It is an anomaly where a resident owns a home and has total assets—including the home—below $23,500.Before people tell me that that is not possible, I suggest they go and visit Broken Hill, where in the last few weeks the city has been told that the mine will close in a couple of years and there is a number of very small old miners' cottages for sale at very low prices. But, if a person does not have a home and has assets below this amount, they are considered concessional and get $12 a day. People who have assets below $23,500, and that includes their own home, are not classified concessional. This is an anomaly. When it comes to trying to claim hardship provisions they cannot do it. The government needs to fix it—no bleating from anybody. This is something about which an aged care provider has been writing to the department and to the minister for some considerable time.If a resident has total assets including the family home of less than $23,500 they cannot be considered concessional. The department advises that residents with total assets of less than $37,000 can apply for hardship provisions. However, if a resident has less than $23,500 they cannot be charged an accommodation charge. But, she has been told that the department cannot consider a hardship application if a facility has not charged an accommodation charge.There is a wonderful little loophole and you have done nothing about it. This particular person, Mrs Irvine, has been writing to the minister for some time about this issue and nothing has happened. It is another area where this government is disadvantaging people living in rural areas, particularly those who are elderly.The other concern that elderly and rural people may have is the cost of accreditation for small nursing homes and small hostels. The amount of paperwork required is very similar no matter what the size of the institution, but there is nothing there. The other question I would like to touch on is the length of time an institution that has failed certification is given before it is required to actually close its doors. I know of one that was failed last year and the patients are still there. They have been told that they might be moved out of the nursing home some time this year. It is a good question.I see that my previous comment about loopholes and anomalies has prompted some action on behalf of the departmental officer in the advisers box. Maybe that has been fixed in the last week. Wouldn't that be wonderful?17:47:003325Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Today we are having a rerun of the same motion that was debated in this place three times, from memory, in 1997. I suppose we can expect it to be rerun many more times by the Labor opposition. The interesting thing about all of these debates is that the Labor opposition never once refer to their record in government. I am sorry for them, because I am going to refer to it tonight.1X4WESTSenator West—That is not going to help the patients there now.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Senator West, you certainly did not help the patients when you were in government. I think it is somewhat hypocritical of an opposition to come in here, having cut aged care spending to smithereens in government, and abuse a government that has reversed those cuts and imply that those cuts have not been reversed. Labor withdrew funding enormously. In 1992 there was a total of $45 million spent on capital stock. I notice that Senator West never, ever stays in the chamber for these debates. She does not like to hear this. Senator West, you are Deputy President of this place and you are wanting to interject from out of your chair and talk to me.1X4WESTSenator West—I am sorry, I am not talking to you.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—She is talking to me about a personal matter.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—It is just extraordinary. The issue that needs to be raised here is the funding level under Labor. In 1992-93 Labor spent $45 million on capital stock. In 1993-94 that had declined to $26.5 million. In 1994-95 it was down to $15.7 million. In 1995-96 it was down to $10.7 million. That just happens to represent a funding reductionof 75 per cent. I did not hear Senator West or Senator Evans mention that. I seek leave of the Senate—and I have spoken to the opposition about this—to have a table incorporated in the Hansard which will show Labor's record and the coalition's spending proposals as they stand.Leave granted.The table read as follows—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Thank you. The other thing I want to make sure is understood in the context of this debate is the fact that, in contrast to that enormous cut, the new capital funding arrangements put in place by Prime Minister Howard in 1997 will provide the $1.3 billion over 10 years that was identified as necessary by Professor Gregory's report and an extra $10 million every year in capital grants in addition to higher recurrent funding. We also recognise that a minority of providers need assistance in meeting the new government requirements for quality building and services. For them we have allocated an additional $20 million to help them restructure and to obtain expert advice on how to do it. Yet we have heard today, again, the Labor opposition saying that we have cut funding. I want to come to that last point that I mentioned about the minority of providers who need assistance in meeting the govern ment's new requirements for quality buildings and services. This is part of Labor's other record. When they left office after 13 years, we just happened to find in the Gregory report that 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards and 15 per cent did not meet health regulations. Professor Gregory also found that 40 per cent of residents had to share a room of more than four beds. Did the Labor government do anything about it? No, that is the legacy they left. Yet today theyhave the audacity to come in here and say, when we are allocating more funding to correct their legacy, that that is somehow wrong and improper.I seek leave to incorporate another table, which goes to the point of how much funding was cut. Once again I have previously sought the approval of the opposition to do so.Leave granted.The table read as follows—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—The Labor Party also ignored the Gregory report, yet it was a report that they commissioned. I cannot understand why they would want to commission it and then just let it gather dust. It took the coalition government to come into office and to start reversing the things that had been identified in the Gregory report. All Labor have been interested in doing since is scaring older people.The Labor Party today have clearly said that they do not understand or accept the reality of extra money that has been put in to meet residential care targets. The Australian National Audit Office reported that there had been a large drop in the number of residential aged care services over the last 10 years of Labor. This government has put in $280 million for staying at home packages, and that will raise the level of aged care places to 103 places per 1,000 people aged 70 and over by 2002. That is demonstrated by the first graph that I sought leave to have incorporated tonight.The other thing that that money does is ensure important things such as more respite care and more carer support. I would have thought, even though this opposition can only knock, that they would say that that was a desirable outcome. But, no, every single thing without exception that the coalition government puts up, they knock. They say it is not good enough. It does not matter how much it is reversing the damage that they did to any given industry in their 13 years of government.The ANAO report says that considerable progress has been made to remedy the inequities between states and between regions, and that the government's staying at home initiative paid particular attention to rural regions. We just heard a diatribe from Senator West that was purely and simply unbelievable. The ANAO noted that there were still regional inequities, especially in the bush. Labor ignored that; we have started to redress that problem.The Commonwealth government is committed to reducing these inequities. For example, 30 per cent of the 500 extra staying at home packages allocated in June 1998 went to rural and remote localities. Not one of us would ever say that we would not want more. Of course we would want more. If we lived in an ideal world we would want everything, and we would want to not pay any taxes to get it. But the reality is that the Labor government ran it down and the coalition government has allocated the money in successive budgets to fix it.As well as that, the government has increased the rate of growth of multipurpose services to provide an increased range of aged care and health services to people living in rural and remote areas in Australia. Under Labor there were 16 multipurpose services; under the coalition government there are now 42 sites, with a further 24 planned. Yet we have had the scare campaign again today that there are inadequate numbers. Why don't they own up and say, `We had insufficient and at least you are turning this around. At least you are doing the right thing and the trend lines are going in the right direction'? There is no recognition at all because they can only knock.The multipurpose services recurrent funding rates under this government have increased by an average of 10.2 per cent to a total of $17.48 million. Yet the Labor opposition say that they have been reduced. Senator West happened to mention the problems that Ms Irvine had identified. I would like to inform Senator West, had she bothered to stay in the chamber, that Ms Irvine met with the minister yesterday and her concerns are under active consideration by the minister. Of course, Senator West does not bother to stay and listen to the other senators' contributions.They talk about wage disparity. The government is still working within the framework set by Labor in the 1995 budget. If they think the wage disparity is so bad, why did they not change it? Why have they left it to the coalition government to make reforms that have seen an extra $160 million a year in extra recurrent funding that has been confirmed by an independent review? Why did they not do something about it in government? They come in here, three years down the track, and carp.It is the same with the accreditation fees. This government is actually doing something about quality. I mentioned the state of nursing home stock at the time of this government's election, which Labor had left in a dreadful state. Under Labor, poor quality nursing homes were allowed to get away with giving poor quality for too long.Then you get the crocodile tears of Senator West in here today; absolutely breathtaking stuff. But we will no longer tolerate the poor care for frail older Australians. The Aged Care Standards Agency set up by this government will play an important role in improving the quality of care. That is a responsibility of each and every government, but it has taken a coalition government to do it, and I am proud of that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! It being six o'clock, the time for the consideration of general business has expired. The Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.Documents33283328Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Cook:That the Senate take note of the document. 18:01:003329Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak briefly on this particular document. My colleague Senator Cook spoke about this yesterday and drew the attention of the Senate to the fact that our relations with India were strained as a result of the tests that occurred earlier last year in India and also in Pakistan. One has to look at the work of the Australia-India Council as being important in the sense that it is a bridge building organisation in the relations between Australia and India. There are other such councils as well for Japan and similar places. This report is indeed welcome because it highlights the work of that particular council over the 1997-98 period.There are a number of things I want to look at in terms of the report. The first is the matter of education. The report says that the objective of the council's education program is to raise the level of knowledge of India, including Australia's relations with India, at the primary and secondary levels in Australian schools. Of course, this also works the other way within India. One of the problems in many of our relationships with other nations is that we do not understand their social, cultural, economic or political systems. Organisations such as this go a long way to overcoming some of those problems. It is interesting to see the program outlined in the report where the council funded a tour of India by Australian primary and secondary teachers during January of 1998 and, according to the report, promoted effective use of India curriculum packages throughout Australia. That is an important element of these types of councils, and it seems from this report that the function is being well performed.The other issue raised is international relations. My colleague Senator Cook, when he spoke to this report yesterday, referred to the strained relations as a result of the nuclear testing. Senator Cook also referred to the fact that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee has conducted an inquiry into those tests and pointed out to the Senate that there was a totally bipartisan attitude in this country to the tests that had been conducted in India and Pakistan, and that was one of condemnation. The issue that was raised during the inquiry conducted by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee was how long our protest would remain and how we would go about repairing any damage that was done to the relationship during that period of time. The curious part is that during that period, when our political relations were strained, our sporting relations were certainly not strained, because we had a tour going on in that particular country.It is important that Australia look at repairing its relations with India, and with Pakistan for that matter. That is something that has not been given any real focus. India will be important to Australia in the future in terms of trade. Last year India was ranked 12th on the list of countries that we export to. We have seen our exports to India grow by 17 per cent, which is a fairly strong trend growth coming off a very low base. (Time expired)18:06:003329West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.3329Debate resumed from 23 March 1999, on motion by Senator Cooney:That the Senate take note of the document.18:06:003329Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This vital report talks about Australian industry in respect of digital broadcasting and has a most apt title: Thinking outside the box . It talks about the new opportunities that are becoming available for Australians and the approach for the future in the view of some thinkers. Page 36 of the report, appendix C, is headed `Further details and opportunities for Australian industry' and talks about data broadcasting and how broadcasters have a significant advantage `in broadcasting at high speed, independent of the telcos'. I think of data broadcasting as push technology. On the subject of datacasting business applications, it says:The broadcaster pushes information at the consumers, whereas the Internet, which is more of a pull technology, depends on consumer requests for information. It continues:Digital television provides broadcasters and datacasters with many business opportunities that were once only in the domain of telecommunications carriers.This new technology presents people with greater opportunities to get their message out in this age of information technology advances and enables people to push information and to push business opportunities onto people rather than the present situation where, according to this report, people can choose when they are going to have this information put upon them.This new technology has not only an economic dimension but also a social one. It is incumbent upon us as a parliament to consider now the sorts of policies that we want to have in place so that when this technology becomes an everyday part of our lives, as a nation we will be able to use it in the most socially efficient, the most economically efficient and the most culturally efficient ways. By `efficient', I mean the quality that best serves us as a nation of people who think well and who are benign but nevertheless dedicated—as we should be in a decent society.This report points to the necessity for us in this new age of technology to think about the sorts of policies that we should now be adopting to accommodate the future, and I am not sure that we have done that as well as we should. This report, which deserves to be read, will enable us to see the issues that are involved, because it is only when we see the issues that are involved in the future that we can make policies now to accommodate in the best possible way the sort of society we are going to live in, as changed by new technology.Question resolved in the affirmative.3330Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of government responses.Australian Federal Police—Ministerial direction, 25 February 1999—Government's priorities and expectations for the AFP for the period 1999-2001 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report—Competitive safeguards 1997-98Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report—Telecommunications charges in Australia, December 1998Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for the period 21 March 1998 to 30 June 1998Committees333033303330Debate resumed from 22 March 1999, on motion by Senator McGauran:That the Senate take note of the report.18:12:003330West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I was a member of the committee that produced the very important report Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories , which is the result of an undertaking to look at the communications needs of our external territories, particularly Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I was unable to make the trip to Norfolk Island, but I made the trip to Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There are a number of issues that need to be looked at very carefully because, although they are part of Australia, in terms of communication they are quite remote. The islands are not entitled to any funding, under the infrastructure funding programs, from the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, and their access to lines for the Internet are impossibly slow—they are basically non-existent. This is a major problem for people, particularly in the education area when schools need to talk to the department in Perth via the Internet. As are most states, Western Australia is moving more and more to the use of technology for the provision of in-service training, for sending out forms and things like that, and their Internet service is not adequate enough to be able to undertake this. It is a big problem and it is one that we have to recognise, although they do have Intranet within the schools and that provides a very good service for them,There are problems also with the air services to the area. They now have some additional flights coming in through Indonesia into Christmas Island but not to Cocos (Keel ing). All of the three islands—Norfolk, Christmas and Cocos (Keeling)—have problems with the lack of freight capacity and the off-loading of freight, particularly in relation to health and medical supplies. These sometimes require a cold chain—they are time sensitive. Certainly we had evidence of specimens being taken from Norfolk Island, sent to Sydney, not being collected properly by the couriers in Sydney and coming back to the island maybe a week later.The diagnoses of some diseases and complaints—and also changes in medication, if that is required—and the tests that have to be done in Sydney or Brisbane can be time critical. This can delay people's treatment and cause a problem. It lowers their quality of life and it may even endanger their lives. So that is a major problem.The other crazy thing concerns airmail sent from overseas to Australia to go to Norfolk Island. Let us say it is coming from the US: it travels from the US to Sydney via airmail and it might then be put on slow mail to get to Norfolk. So that anomaly needs to be addressed. One of the recommendations is that, if something is airmailed into Australia, we should not just consider that the airmail component applies only until it reaches the continent of Australia. Certainly a lot of mail gets sent around Australia by air that is not airmail. I think we need to make sure that people are in fact able to obtain this material.There is also a problem in that many things get off-loaded. It is a bigger problem, I think, on Christmas and Cocos islands—and I think they have fewer shipping connections than Norfolk as well. We certainly had evidence from a number of people in the Indian Ocean territories that they would know when their telephone bill was due because the telephone would be cut off because they had not paid it. The bill would have been in the mail but would have been off-loaded because the flight was over capacity in weight. The aircraft have to run with additional fuel because it is a long distance to fly out there, and on some occasions that requires them taking less cargo than if the aircraft were doing a run within the country. So it is certainly a concern.On occasions it also impacts on the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables that might have to come across on those flights. The health people also advised that they had had occasions when urgently needed medications and drugs had been off-loaded because of weight problems. Getting a seat on the aircraft out of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands going to Perth at peak times can be a problem because the flights can be fully booked for four or five months in advance. That is a major problem if somebody suddenly needs to go to Perth for medical reasons. It means that somebody who would have had their seat booked for some considerable time gets pulled off the flight. This is not good for those who need to travel and it is not particularly good for those who need to be evacuated.We also heard how telemedicine would be able to improve diagnoses and specialist medical treatment and care, and maybe reduce the need for medical evacuations on some occasions. Medical evacuations are horrifically expensive—we are talking big, five-figure sums of money as well as considerable time. If they had sufficient line capacity and electronic capacity, they would be able to look quite realistically at the use of telemedicine and also at being able to send down the line things like X-rays and ECGs so that diagnoses could be made by a specialist, or a consultation could be had with a specialist, in Perth. This may result in, perhaps, not requiring an evacuation or maybe requiring an evacuation earlier than would have been undertaken. It would certainly allow the doctors on the islands to instigate more refined forms of treatment at an earlier stage. So it is a major issue for people in the area.The change of footprint for some of the television stations was also of concern to them. Digital versus analog is an issue, and even the communications between the two main islands in the Cocos (Keeling) group are very difficult. The reception often does not work. Trying to ring from West Island to Home Island can be difficult. Also, the telephone service does not work on part of Christmas Island. Their television and radio reception is also very much subject to the vagaries of the weather; if there is a lot of cloud cover, this can impact quite seriously upon the ability to receive clear signals.These are things of concern. We need to remember that Australia is not just this continent and Tasmania; it does include Macquarie Island, territories in the Antarctic, Norfolk Island and the Indian Ocean territories. Whilst there may not be a great number of people living there, we need to make sure that their needs are recognised. Those outlying territories are certainly of strategic importance to this country. We are a multicultural country and we need to recognise that it is important for our islands that are more remote from the mainland to have access to the same programs that we have here on the mainland so that they do not feel isolated and so that they can see and understand what people on the mainland are doing, perhaps why they are doing it and what is going on here. Those islands are of strategic importance to Australia, and I think this report certainly highlights some of the things that need to be done to improve the communications. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.33323332Debate resumed from 22 March 1999, on motion by Senator Cooney:That the Senate take note of the report.18:22:003332Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I rise to speak to this report by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as a former member of this committee. When a lot of the issues relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment were being dealt with, there was a high degree of public interest from individual members of the public right through to local government and a whole range of other NGOs with regard to what was proposed for a multilateral agreement on investment and what it meant for Australia.I have not read this report in total but, given its recommendations and the responses from the government to the interim report that was handed down, I found interesting the government's response to two of the recom mendations contained in the interim report. In effect, they say that we have withdrawn from negotiations on the MAI on the basis of the decision by the French government to withdraw. I found that an outstanding position. It does not clarify whether, if the French go back in at some point in time, we go back. There is no indication of that whatsoever.Given all the problems that were raised at several hearings we had, it became abundantly clear that Treasury—which was the department primarily responsible for dealing with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—had not conducted the consultative process in any way like it should have been conducted. They said, I think, that they had conducted consultations with umbrella organisations, but the information had clearly not flowed and they had not sought to follow it up. It appeared, as is stated in this 18th report, that Treasury felt they owned it. I found the conclusions and the recommendations at page 105 of the report interesting. Recommendation 8.47 says:The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that, if there are negotiations for an across countries agreement for the regulation of international capital:. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet assume the lead role in coordinating the Australian Government's negotiations;. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet actively and effectively involve all relevant Commonwealth agencies from the beginning of any negotiations;. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to put their views on all aspects of any negotiating text as part of an open and public process, and. from the beginning of any negotiations towards such an agreement, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet forward written reports on a six-monthly basis to the Commonwealth about their content and progress.The committee concluded that simply because of the things that were involved with a multilateral agreement on investment. We had to provide treatment to foreign companies and foreign investors equal to that applied to national companies and investors, and a whole raft of problems could flow from that. The compensation provisions of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment could allow for private companies to actually sue governments—local governments, state governments and/or the national government. As it was proposed in the draft form—where it had got to prior to us withdrawing from negotiations—you could actually see us having to repeal democratically made governmental decisions to comply with an international agreement. That is not a position any government or country should allow itself to be put into.We have been debating in this chamber—and will debate again in this chamber—the full privatisation of Telstra. What I found very interesting in the draft agreement was where telecommunications was placed. There were schedules attached to this agreement, and telecommunications was placed in the section that had the roll-back provisions applied to it. The roll-back provisions under the then draft multilateral agreement on investment required a country to remove any restriction on foreign ownership of companies, be they public or private.Despite the claims of the government at the time that they were going to legislate for only up to, I think, 35 per cent or a maximum of five per cent in any single holding of foreign ownership, if we had signed off on a multilateral agreement on investment we could have found ourselves being required to roll back that legislative restriction that we had in place—to remove it over time—to allow for the possibility of 100 per cent foreign ownership of Telstra. That is the reality of where we were heading to under the progress of the multilateral agreement that was being negotiated.Of course, the other thing is that it could have possibly led to the elimination of the Foreign Investment Review Board, which is there, supposedly, to make an assessment of what is in the national interest with regard to foreign investment in this country. It would seek to lock in a whole range of deregulatory measures, such as the one I spoke about with regard to the roll-back provisions and stand-still provisions. I was reading what is a critical analysis by Mr Graham Dunkley. I will read some of the words from that analy sis because I think he has very succinctly outlined some of the concerns and some of the arguments that ought to be put. He says:Finally, the ultimate argument for the MAI is that FDI—which is foreign direct investment—is good, TNCs—which is transnational companies—are good, globalization is good; perhaps even greed is good. The traditional arguments for FDI are that it will supplement savings, expand investment, boost GDP growth, generate exports, create jobs, bring new technologies, improve skills and generally enhance innovation.There is now a vast literature on these issues and the results are not as clear as MAI supporters assume. Certainly FDI can bolster savings, investment and income, but only if new investment continues to out-weight profit repatriations. Exports may only be generated if TNCs choose to make the country an export platform. The balance of payments will only be improved if exports are generated, counter-imports are not too high, adverse transfer pricing is not used and capital is imported (rather than simply raised locally as the new foreign private owners of Australia's airports have done).I think that is a very valid point because, if we are about negotiating an agreement, then we ought to be negotiating on the basis of what is in the national interest. The negotiators we had under Treasury, who were gung-ho about this, were clearly not taking into account the sorts of circumstances that have been highlighted by Mr Dunkley.I think the government still owes this parliament and the people of Australia a better explanation and a better response than it has thus provided with respect to where it was headed. It is all very good for some government senators to say, `Look, you started it.' You happen to be in government now.1X4WESTSenator West—They have been there for three years.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—As Senator West just pointed out, you have been there for three years. You have a responsibility to tell the Australian public where you are heading. I cannot for the life of me understand the response that says, `Look, the French have withdrawn, so we're out.' It just beggars belief. What does that mean? When the French have jumped back in, will we be back in? I would be very interested to hear from the government to find out whether or not we will be back in if the French are back in. I think it is a disgrace and I look forward to the government's response to this, the final report on the MAI, and seeing where we are headed. (Time expired)18:32:003334Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Many of the matters I was going to raise have been raised by Senator Murphy in his excellent speech. The committee that was looking at this—an international committee of the OECD—has now broken up. That does not mean that we have to cease to be concerned about the flow of international capital. As you would know much better than I, Mr Acting Deputy President, this is what the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which produced this report, was looking at. It is an excellent committee. It was looking at what the Australian Treasury was doing with other like bodies around the world within the OECD. What they were doing was working out the rules or the absence of rules that should operate in respect of capital as it went international, how it could be transferred, and so on.The report of the committee says that should another institution arise, should another treaty be contemplated regulating the flow of capital around the world, then Australia should be in the body that looks at that issue. And so it should be because the issue of the flow of capital around the world is a big one, as has been very much indicated in recent times with the disasters that have occurred in Asian nations and elsewhere.If we are going to look at the flow of international capital around the world, we should be in a position to know exactly what capital is doing and how industry in our own country has been affected by the flow of money. There is some concern that we are going ahead with policy making without being fully aware of all the implications that come from the flow of capital and come from the issue of what companies might charge, for example. Prices that are charged and paid affect the flow of capital. In that context, it is interesting to look at the recent publication of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission entitled Telecommunications Charges in Australia. I was reminded of this by the remarks that Senator Murphy made about Telstra. It is interesting to see what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has to say about current pricing information. It says:There is no official, published collection of telecommunications prices in Australia. However, Telstra is required to file its tariffs with the Commission and the compliance conditions under the price cap also require it to apply a methodology for estimating and reporting price changes to the Commission. Consequently, the Commission holds a full set of prices of Telstra's services and equipment, and interpretive data in respect of most of Telstra's price-capped services.The Government has indicated its intention to legislate to require telecommunications carriers to report price and volume data across a range of specified services to the Commission to allow it to provide regular, impartial, public reports of pricing and market share.It is good to see the government entering into the business world and to bring into it certain regulations and requirements so that the business world can function and operate to the good of the community generally and provide information that is needed to set up a policy, first of all nationally but ultimately internationally, that will enable the riches of the world—which is what capital really is—to be used in the most productive manner. It is a matter of some amazement, I suggest, that we have not got available to us at this stage the sort of information that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says we should have.I want to make these points. Firstly, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is not going to come into operation because the people that were discussing it—people from various countries around the world, including Australia, all within the OECD—have ceased to discuss it. The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment is finished. Secondly, it indicates that there is a need and an appetite for some international agreement about the flow of capital. Thirdly, it is likely that there will be a return to a discussion about how international capital should be treated by the various countries around the world.Fourthly, if you look at the sorts of comments that are made in this report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, it is essential that there be some requirement that such issues as the prices that are charged and the market share that particular companies have be looked at by government or by government agencies. In other words, there should be some supervision by governments—not only the Australian government but governments around the world—as to what is happening with investment and what is happening with companies of the size of Telstra.Fifthly, the most important point is that, given all those things, there now ought to be development of some public policy as to how we as a nation are going to handle the flow of capital and how we are going to handle what that capital does. The useful exercise of capital is to build up business. We have got to look at what businesses it builds up and how those businesses operate within the marketplace, and so form a national policy and then an international policy which will produce the goods we are looking for. Then we need to look at how the goods, the capital or the products of the various companies we are talking about will be distributed fairly—this is perhaps the part that is not looked at enough these days—not only within Australia but around the world.Question resolved in the affirmative.33353335Debate resumed from 24 March 1999, on motion by Senator Watson:That the Senate take note of the report.18:42:003335Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Yesterday I was speaking about my support for the motion moved by Senator West, particularly those aspects that relate to the actions of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, who undertook most disgraceful and most inappropriate action in orchestrating witnesses to appear before a Senate committee, under the cover of departmental witness es, in such a manner as to provide aid and comfort to this government in its campaign to impose upon the workers of this country further attacks upon their conditions and their employment security in the matter of the unfair dismissals laws that they were proposing.In January this year, the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee inquired into this proposed law and heard witnesses from a range of backgrounds and from a range of organisations, yet this government, in a most sneaky and underhand manner, sought to bring to this committee as witnesses private citizens who appeared together with departmental witnesses. I was the deputy chair of the Senate committee, and I asked the committee to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee has agreed that this is a most inappropriate action and, in its report, highlights:Following a hearing of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the unfair dismissals legislation, concern was expressed at the action of the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in bringing private witnesses with officers of the department who were to appear before the committee, with the intention that the evidence of those witnesses support the bill.It went on to say:The Procedure Committee considers that it would be highly undesirable, from the standpoint of both the Senate and the government, for departments to fall into this practice, particularly in inquiries by legislation committees into bills.It further says:It is not the role of the departments to be gathering private witnesses in support of a bill and insinuating them into committee hearings under the cover of an appearance by departmental officers. Such private witnesses, if they are invited by the committee to appear, should be heard separately.Clearly these are views that I strongly endorse.Of course I understand that this is not a contentious proposition—that all senators would naturally agree with this report. The evidence that was heard in the estimates committee demonstrated quite clearly the deep involvement of this minister in these disgraceful actions. The committee resolved, after discussion, that it would report this matter to the Senate and that the committee would write to all ministers indicating that this practice is inappropriate and that if witness expenses are to be paid by others this should be known to the committees concerned.These actions came about as a result of an invitation that was issued through the minister's office and the department for Mr Clive and Bryce Tonkin from Adelaide and Mr Frank Denvir and Mr Clement Maloney from Melbourne to fly to Canberra at departmental expense, at a cost of $2,268.60, and to appear before the committee with departmental officers. This was a most inappropriate course of action, as it was apparent that at least one of the witnesses was currently engaged in a matter before courts in this country and that other witnesses were involved in matters which had nothing whatsoever to do with the current law insofar as the unfair dismissal concerns they had related to state legislation, not to federal or Commonwealth law.I must say that these witnesses must feel terribly badly treated in all of this, because I do not believe that they personally were necessarily involved in any action that was inappropriate but that they in good faith would have been asked by the government to come along and give their views. I can understand citizens wanting to do that. What they would not have understood is that they were being used in a cheap and tawdry political stunt to be the paid cheer squad for departmental officers who were obviously short on strong argument to defend the government's position.When Mr Denvir spoke to the Australian newspaper, as reported on 9 February this year, he said that `the visit to Canberra had left him out of pocket and had also cost him a day's lost work.' Mr Clive Tonkin said, `I was more than happy to pay my own expenses.' Yet the government, with all the largesse that governments have when they are trying to engage in these sorts of political stunts, paid the expenses of these witnesses to appear. The department and a senior officer of the department, Dr Shergold, indicated that it was the minister's office that suggested this course of action. And given the minister's involvement in the conspiracy matters associated with the Dubai affair, one could expect the concern that officers would have about being told that they should comply. I am very disappointed, however, that departmental officers sought to act in this way, because what apparently occurred, from the evidence we had, is that Dr Shergold apparently made little attempt to evaluate the evidence that was likely to be presented by these witnesses, and he obviously did not give any consideration to the unprecedented actions that were being embarked upon in the use of private witnesses appearing with departmental witnesses in this way. He had not understood that two of the witnesses were to give testimony about matters that had nothing to do with the Commonwealth law. He had obviously not thought about the involvement of Mr Maloney in the dispute before AIRC and that therefore, in my judgment, it was sub judice for him to appear.What had occurred was that a junior clerk had been assigned the task of providing a cursory glance at possible witnesses to meet the minister's request to find suitable persons who could fill the role as cheer squad members. We understand that the department undertook to provide these names, but it was the minister's office that finally came up with them; it was the minister's office that came up with the stunt; and it was the minister's office that manipulated the normal departmental processes in engaging the department to facilitate these actions. And it was the coalition members of the committee that went along with these inappropriate actions.An important consideration that does arise is whether this action is strictly speaking within the standing orders and should be put to one side. But we all know the precedents that are being set and how wrong it is for departments to act in this way. While there may not be, strictly speaking, anything in the standing orders to prevent a party from paying the expenses of witnesses before committ ees—we all understand there is a provision within the standing orders to allow that to occur—it may however be a contempt of the Senate. I certainly believe that the Senate is being treated in a contemptuous way by this minister.It may be contempt in that payments may be made by departments while seeking to deliberately conceal them from a committee, particularly in conjunction with circumstances where the committee could be misled as to the status of such witnesses or the nature of the evidence that they are about to present. It may well be that payment is made in an attempt to influence a witness as to the nature of the evidence that the witness should be giving and that the evidence may be tainted by the actions of the department in providing this inducement. It may well be that payments associated with this form of action may be an improper attempt to influence the character of evidence being given.For those reasons, while I think there may not necessarily be procedural barriers to this action occurring, it is totally inappropriate. And therefore I support the view that the President of the Senate should be writing to all departmental secretaries and government ministers and telling them that this is just not on; that this is not an appropriate course of action to be embarked upon by this government.We know that this government have a contempt for the parliamentary processes. We have seen it in the way in which they have sought to rort the Senate's voting system when they have advocated positions to undermine the authority of the Senate when it suits them. They are obviously not happy with the use of the Senate legislation committees to inquire into legislation, particularly extremely unpopular, unfair and unreasonable legislation, such as the unfair dismissals legislation. And of course it may well be that they think it is their right to impose witnesses in this way but, quite clearly, this is not action that ought to be countenanced by this Senate. And now that it has been exposed, I trust that action will be taken within government to ensure that this never happens again.I think it is important for the Senate to appreciate the implications of this case. I am hopeful that all senators will agree that this is not the sort of behaviour that one expects from ministers—even ministers such as Mr Reith, who has clearly demonstrated his view of how politics is to be performed in this country and has demonstrated again and again that he is quite prepared to pursue any stratagem, no matter what its moral or ethical implications might be, in the pursuit of his narrow political objectives.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Chee) adjourned.3337Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of committee reports and government responses:Privileges—Standing Committee—75th report—Execution of search warrants in senators' officesForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Loss of HMAS SydneyAdjournment333710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! There being no further consideration of committee reports and government responses, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.333718:52:003337Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—For AFL football fans, this day, Thursday 25 March, is an auspicious one, marking the start of an eagerly awaited 1999 home and away AFL footy season. At the outset, I should declare some personal interest in tonight's debate—I have to admit to being an avid Essendon fan. It is not as bad as being a Carlton fan, I guess. It just so happens that the mighty Bombers are playing their first game of the season tonight against Carlton. Many residents of my electorate of the Northern Territory are fanatical followers of Australian football. AFL plays a very important part in their lives, as indeed it does for a lot of Australians, especially Victorians.As you may know, over the years the Territory has produced some outstanding AFL footballers, people like Maurice Rioli—now a Territory Labor MLA, Michael Long, Andrew McLeod, Robbie AhMat and Mark West, just to name a few. However, the issue that I want to speak about tonight is that the residents of the majority of remote Territory communities—whose residents, I should add, are predominantly Aboriginal—will be missing out on watching broadcasts of the AFL games. They have already missed out on watching the excitement of the preseason Ansett Cup competition. Football is big in the Territory's Aboriginal communities. Young Aboriginal kids love to play and love to watch.Football is a big community event. If you visit any of the Territory's remote communities, you will always see young Aboriginal kids playing football, emulating their AFL heroes, wearing their jumpers. I am thinking of such Top End communities as Barunga, Daguragu, Pine Creek, Milingimbi, Yirrkala and Mataranka; and Central Australian communities such as Areyonga, Yuendumu, Santa Teresa, Willowra, Nyirrpi, Hermannsburg, Wallace Rockhole, Mutitjulu and Docker River—and the list goes on. These are remote communities, mad keen on AFL football and now unable to watch the Channel 7 footy broadcasts. I should also point out that many communities in the area of South Australia stretching from Moomba to Ceduna, which also receive Imparja broadcasts, may miss out on AFL broadcasts.Next week I intend to table a petition signed by over 400 Territorians living in remote locations, who are upset that they cannot access AFL broadcasts in their communities. How did this happen, and why am I on my feet in the Senate to talk about this? On 23 December last year, the Australian Broadcasting Authority extended the broadcast areas of the Aboriginal owned Imparja Television, which broadcasts out of Alice Springs, and the Telecasters owned television station, then a Channel 10 affiliate, which broadcasts out of Townsville. The extension of their broadcasting licences allows Channel 7 Central and Imparja to broadcast into each other's broadcast areas. This move gave viewers access, theoretically anyway, to two commercial channels.At the same time, Telecasters decided to become an affiliate of Channel 7 Network from 1 February this year, giving them full access to Seven Network programming, including the AFL. As a result, Imparja, which had broadcast AFL games to remote communities via satellite for the past 10 or so years, lost the right to show AFL games—meaning that those communities that only get Imparja can no longer automatically watch the AFL broadcasts.As a result of all this, these remote communities have three alternatives. They can keep Imparja, and go without Channel 7 Central and the football; they can choose to give up Imparja—with its local news, Aboriginal programs and other programming—and switch over to Channel 7 Central; or they can purchase the additional decoder and apply to the Australian Broadcasting Authority for a licence that would allow them to access and retransmit the additional commercial channel. However, if they decide to proceed with the latter—which is the most preferable because it gives them access to all TV channels—and buy the equipment, they need to find anywhere between $8,000 and $30,000, depending on whether they are a self-help or BRACS community, and depending on what transponders and transmission equipment they need.For many remote communities, many of which are impoverished and barely managing with the local government funding they receive, that sort of money is simply out of the reach of most of them. Channel 7 Central has said it will install the necessary retransmission equipment, but only in communities larger than 2,000 people. However, this excludes the Territory's remote communities, which vary in size from about 400 to 1,000 people. I believe that the Territory's remote communities are entitled to access the AFL on the same terms as other Australians do. I firmly believe that a universal service obligation should be introduced for Australia's broadcasting services to ensure that all Australians have access to a range of broadcasting services—including broadcasts of what is, after all, Australia's national game, AFL. As was pointed out in the report on Communications with Australia's External Territories, which was tabled in the Senate this week:Broadcasting services are not just a commercial matter. They influence both cultural identity and the Australian people's sense of national integration. For this reason it is in Australia's long term interest to ensure that all Australians receive a variety of Australian broadcast services through clear and reliable signals.Last week, in what can only be described as a very cynical move aimed at softening up the Senate for the debate on the further sale of Telstra, the federal government announced it would allocate funds to improve broadcasting services to remote and regional communities.The government said this move would give BRACS, the Broadcasting in Remote Aboriginal Communities Scheme, and `self-help' communities in remote areas of Australia access to a second commercial channel and hence access to AFL football broadcasts. Self-help communities are those communities which decided not to install individual decoder dishes but instead bought a community transmitter. The funding would help them buy additional transmitters and a satellite decoder by providing for 75 per cent of the cost of the purchase. But, and here's the catch, these funds would come from the further sale of Telstra, which the government had hoped the Senate would pass this week.However, we saw what happened with the government's Telstra bill this week. At the last moment, after a few hours of debate, the government pulled the bill from the Senate for an `indefinite' period of time. I am glad the bill has been pulled because I do not believe the sale of Telstra will benefit my constituents in the Northern Territory. It would simply lead to a reduction in the quality of telecommunication services. I also do not believe that the provision of adequate broadcasting services to Australians living in remote communities should be dependent on the further sale of Telstra. Instead, the federal government should ensure access to broadcasting services is provided to all Australians as a right, independent of Telstra's future.The federal government has made a mess of the aggregation process involving Imparja and Channel 7 Central. It should have ensured that viewers would be able to maintain the existing viewing, especially programs such as AFL broadcasts, or rugby league, in the case of Northern Queensland viewers. The least the federal government can do now, in the short term, is immediately ensure that Imparja is given the right to broadcast AFL games for the 1999 year or until all remote communities are able to access the additional commercial channel.Senator Alston should immediately call the AFL, Channel 7 Central and Imparja together to find a short-term solution so that those residents of remote communities can access those AFL broadcasts. The most obvious solution to the problem in the short term is for Channel 7 Central to allow a program swap, which would meet the needs of both stations' viewers in the short term. I also point out that Senator Ian Macdonald, the minister for territories, speaking on ABC radio last week misled Territorians by saying that Channel 7 and Imparja had agreed to a temporary program swap. When the stations were asked about this program swap, they knew nothing about it. It makes you wonder if this government knows what is actually happening in remote and regional Australia. Imagine the outcry if Australians living in Melbourne or Sydney suddenly found they couldn't access the AFL or the cricket.It is simply not good enough for the federal government to ignore the problem or to promise that all the problems will be solved by the privatisation of Telstra. The government is being irresponsible in getting the hopes up of those residents of remote communities and using them as political footballs in this outrageous debate. I call on the government to act immediately to ensure that residents of remote communities have adequate broadcasting services and that all Territorians can access their footy.333919:02:003339Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise this evening to inform the Senate and the general public of a conspiracy between the state ALP government and the union movement which is going to cost the youth of Australia thousands of jobs by undermining the very successful Work for the Dole project.Senator O'Brien interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I will get on to that, Senator. If you want me to refer to regional Australia, I will give you some figures on that. Last week, I was lucky enough to present the graduate certificates to two of these Work for the Dole projects in northern New South Wales. One was at the Walka Water Works in the federal electorate of Patterson and the other was the Mingara Centre in the federal seat of Dobell. The Walka Water Works scheme employed 180 local unemployed youth, with 80 per cent of them expressing satisfaction with the program and 30 per cent of them coming out of this with full-time jobs. Nationally, the average is higher, with 32 per cent of long-term unemployed emerging with full-time work and 10 per cent going on to further education and training.But if the ALP and the unions had their way, this program would not have existed. Sixty young people in the seat of Patterson and 40 in the seat of Dobell would still be unemployed or not be taking it upon themselves to do further formal training. Despite the weight of evidence that the Work for the Dole scheme has been an outstanding success, the state ALP and their union co-conspirators are trying to block its path. The Australian Workers Union has this month blocked five Work for the Dole projects in New South Wales. These would have occupied more than 500 people who have been long-term unemployed in the towns of Port Macquarie, Armidale, Dorrigo, Grafton and South West Rocks.On average, 200 young people who participated in the courses would have come out with a formal qualification and a job. But, because of one intransigent union official in a Sydney office, that has all been blocked and all of those young people will miss out on a job. That is 200 jobs in rural and regional Australia thrown away. The five projects to be undertaken in these towns were supported by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the local union organisers. But it was the state organiser, who obviously did not understand what was going on and did not understand the need for jobs in this area, who actually blocked it.Across the country, this scheme has been working very successfully. The Howard government has now put in place 412 Work for the Dole programs, employing 18,000 young people. That is about to expand over the next four years to 125,000 long-term unemployed being given the opportunity to gain a job. That translates, on current trends, into 40,000 people in work, and 12,500 more people in formal education.It is much more successful than the Labor government's failed Working Nation program. It is returning on average 32 per cent long-term unemployed into the work force, at a cost of $3,900, on average, compared to the enormous costs that existed under Labor's failed Working Nation program. We all remember the hundreds of millions of dollars that were wasted on that.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What was the percentage out of LEAP?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—We have a more effective and efficient program, Senator Forshaw. We are getting better job outcomes at a much lower rate—32 per cent is higher than Working Nation, and $3,900 is a hell of a lot lower than the $52,000 that your New Work Opportunities Program was costing. Senator Forshaw has gone quiet, and it is no wonder. Senator Forshaw should listen to some of his colleagues. I suggest he listens to and reads the work of the member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, and of the member for Werriwa, Mark Latham. If Senator Forshaw listens to what they have to say, and reads what they have written about this, he will find that they tend to agree more with me than they do with him—which is why, I assume, one of them is languishing on the back bench.Returning to the initial program where we are trying to expand Work for the Dole, it is very unfortunate that Premier Carr and the unions have stopped this going ahead. This is in line of course with the federal ALP's very negative policy towards employment. The Beazley opposition has opposed the unfair dismissal—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should not refer to the Leader of the Opposition in that fashion.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I am sorry; the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley. His opposition has opposed unfair dismissal provisions. Initially we had estimates that the reform was going to create another 50,000 jobs, but in evidence before Senate committee hearings respected business councils are now telling us that it could somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs.But this opposition is blocking that. It also vetoed youth wage rates, putting at risk the job security of 420,000 young Australians. We are not talking about new measures here. We are talking about measures that are in place which, because of the discrimination act, will cease next year unless the Senate amends it. To keep the current arrangements in place the Senate has to amend it. This opposition has refused to do that and puts at risk current jobs. You are not talking about creating new jobs; you are putting at risk up to 420,000 current jobs.They have opposed legislation to extend mutual obligation, which is the foundation for such things as Work for the Dole. They have also rejected the coalition's enhanced apprenticeship scheme. We really have to ask this Labor opposition why they are so anti work. Why are they so anti programs that are going to put people in work? Why do they continually oppose in this chamber legislation which will assist programs that will give people real jobs?Let me go back to what we were trying to do with Work for the Dole initially and see how Labor measure up now. We aimed to develop work habits in young people, to involve the local community in quality projects provided for these people, to help the young unemployed at the end of the projects to achieve real jobs and to provide communities with projects in their local community—such as the ones I saw at Walka Water Works—which will improve their standard. Everything, as far as this program has travelled to date, indicates success, and continuing success will come with the government's dramatic expansion of this program over the next few years.The young people I met at Walka Water Works and at the Mingara Centre were very heartened by their experience. There were very positive comments from them, their parents and the local community that was benefiting from these projects. It is obviously easier for the opposition to sit back and knock everything this government is doing for unemployment rather than try to support outcomes that will provide the youth of this nation with real jobs.334119:10:003341Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—On Sunday, 21 March 1999, the 60 Minutes program provided to the Australian people a devastating expose of former Labor leader Keating's financial transactions associated with his now infamous piggery. In typical Keatingesque style, he denied the allegations with a flourish. He called them a `hatchet job'. The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 23 March 1999 at page 7:Mr Keating said after the program screened on Sunday night that the "option did exist"."It was not owned by me," he said. "But even if it had been, I was not required to disclose it."Given that the option existed, the former Labor leader's other quotable quote—reported in the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 March 1999 at page 16—needs full analysis. In that editorial the former Labor leader is quoted as saying:"Everything I told Parliament was completely correct" . . . So what did the former Labor leader tell the parliament? In answer to an opposition question on this very matter, dealing with the piggery and his personal financial transactions, the former Labor leader told the House of Representatives on 24 March 1994—that is exactly five years and one day ago—that:The honourable gentleman—referring to Mr McLachlan, the then member for Barker—seems to know much, but he does not know that I disposed of my interest in this business nearly two weeks ago. He does not know that, but I am telling him.So Labor's former leader, Mr Keating, announced to the world that he had disposed of his interest. Because he was not forthcoming with proof, we had to accept that assertion. However, it is now quite clear that the former Labor leader sold his shares but, in a slick deal, retained an interest—contrary to what he told the parliament—by retaining an option to buy back. Either he or a company with which he was associated held that option. The option was later sold for over $1 million. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that one million dollars plus is an interest, indeed a substantial interest.An option is clearly an interest. As the value of the company increases, so does the value of the option, and therefore pulling strings or doing things to advantage the company are actions which increase the value of the option—a very clear interest in anyone's language. As such, there existed a responsibility to disclose the option. Indeed the former Labor leader appeared in 1975—some 20 years earlier, before he pulled this particular stunt—before a parliamentary committee setting rules for disclosing members' outside interests. A report of the Hansard shows Keating gave the hypothetical example of an MP being able to hide a profit if he had:"an option to purchase for an infinitesimal amount, a property or shares, at sometime in the future, and only one copy ever existed and that was with the member himself—no-one", said Keating, "could ever say that had received it."All hypothetical of course, but not so hypothetical in this case because, as has now been revealed, this is exactly what the former Labor leader did. The state of the evidence is now very clear. Mr Keating, the former Labor leader, did mislead the House—no splitting of hairs. No silver-tongued apologist can deny that. This should be a matter of grave concern to all honourable senators and members and to all Australians.334219:15:003342Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As all senators would be aware, there is an election this coming Saturday for the lower and upper houses of the New South Wales parliament. From virtually all reports it seems likely that the government of Mr Carr is going to be returned. What is certainly far less clear is what the outcome is going to be in the upper house. That is an issue of great importance—I do not need to convince anyone in this chamber of the importance of upper houses and the vital role they play in ensuring some sort of parliamentary check on the role of the government of the day.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is why you haven't got one in Queensland.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—As Senator Forshaw said, it is a great shame—I think that is what he said; I am sure he would have said that it is a great shame—that we do not have one in Queensland. We have seen some of the unfortunate impacts in my own state of Queensland of not having a proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of government. Nonetheless, it is important that the representatives of any parliamentary chamber are capable people elected under a system that has the confidence of the people and that is suitably democratic.A lot of attention has been paid to the size of the ballot paper in the upper house in New South Wales, which is due to the ability of people to get elected virtually entirely on the basis of undertaking arrangements in relation to preferences with other small groups without having to get any significant degree of support from the general public. The big difference between that chamber and any other upper house is that, in any other proportional system that operates within Australia, a candidate is rarely able to get elected unless they have a significant proportion of public support; the basis then being that the preference flows from excluded candidates provide a greater opportunity for the proper democratic wishes of the public to be reflected in the eventual outcome in the chamber.What is probably even more disconcerting in relation to the situation in New South Wales—apart from the people that the public basically knows nothing about, many of whom are unable to be contacted—is the ability of people to register themselves as a party. There is no requirement for that party name to accurately represent what that organisation is about, enabling them to completely misrepresent what they are about.Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is a party that was registered as the Animal Liberation Party. The registered officer and certainly any members that have been able to be identified of that party have no connection with the Animal Liberation organisation in New South Wales. There is no commonality of membership and no commonality of purpose. Any reasonable person who sees a party called the Animal Liberation Party would assume that they had some connection with or support from Animal Liberation in that state. Clearly that is not the case in this situation.We have a party that is basically standing under false pretences, giving a completely false indication of what their support base is and what their philosophy is about. Apart from the potential to mislead the voters, this also leads to the potential for the genuine organisation—and I use the Animal Liberation organisation by way of example—to be discredited by any statements or actions by people who are registered under that name.It is a matter that is of great concern to the Democrats because it does bring the democratic system into disrepute. The crucial aspect of retaining what is left of public support for the democratic system and for our system of government is to ensure that the public has confidence in the electoral system and confidence in the accuracy of what people stand for when they stand for election. When the balance between being able to democratically choose and ensuring that the representation of parliament accurately reflects the views of the population is weakened by a system that has the potential to end up being not much more than a lottery, obviously the confidence of the public in that system can be significantly reduced.This is an issue that, certainly as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Matters, I will be pursuing with interest, particularly in terms of the ability of people to register under a party name that implies association with an existing and well-known community organisation. The example I gave of the Animal Liberation Party is but one of many parties that will be standing on Saturday for election to the New South Wales upper house. A number of other parties have registered under names that give quite a misleading indication of what their actual association and orientation is about. That can only be bad for democracy.The Democrats, as honourable senators would know, have long supported a proportional representation form of voting. That voting system is one that we believe is strongly supported by the public because it does provide an outcome that most accurately reflects the views of the public. That is why chambers such as the Senate have strong support amongst the public. They know that its composition more fairly and accurately represents the views of people. They feel less disenfranchised than they do under systems such as those that operate in the lower house.The situation in the New South Wales upper house is unfortunate, not specifically because of it being proportional representation but as much because of the great degree of ease with which people can register as a political party and pass themselves off as something other than what they represent. Perhaps more to the point, they can pass themselves off as a legitimate political party—and clearly a large proportion of those standing on the weekend are not legitimate. When people are able to register a political party purely as a publicity stunt for their commercial television program, that is a situation with the potential to further devalue the confidence people have in the democratic system. In that circumstance, I believe this is an issue that needs to be examined.We are fortunate that we do not have a problem of that degree at the federal level. Certainly I will be keen to ensure that the problems that have been evident in New South Wales do not repeat themselves at the federal level. I am sure many parties in New South Wales will also be trying to ensure that the system there is modified so that a more reputable and democratic system is in operation.In closing, as a reaffirmation of the importance of the democratic process, I wish all candidates of all parties and persuasions the best on Saturday. I think it is important that people do participate in the political process. It is always a positive thing to have community debate and to have the opportunity for people to have a say as to who will represent them in their parliamentary system. In relation to the very important role of the upper house, I do urge the voters of New South Wales to think carefully, take the time to unfold that beach towel of a ballot paper and make sure they realise that they will be stuck for eight years with whoever they put a No. 1 next to. It is an important choice and I urge them to think carefully before they cast their vote.19:24:003344Senate adjourned at 7.24 p.m.Documents33443344The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Statement under subsection 122A(3)—Suspension and removal from office of a regional councillor.Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 41.Christmas Island Act—Ordinance—No. 1 of 1999 (Interpretation Amendment Ordinance 1999 (No. 1)).No. 2 of 1999 (Interpretation Act 1984 (W.A.) (C.I.) Amendment Ordinance 1999 (No. 1)).Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Ordinance—No. 1 of 1999 (Interpretation Amendment Ordinance 1999 (No. 1)).No. 2 of 1999 (Interpretation Act 1984 (W.A.) (C.K.I.) Amendment Ordinance 1999 (No. 1)).Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 46.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 47.Disability Discrimination Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 40.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 39. Financial Management and Accountability Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 44 and 45.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 48.Life Insurance Act—Prudential Rules No. 30—Variation of all Commissioner's Rules in force immediately before APRA commencement.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 50.Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 49.Product Ruling PR 1999/10.Public Service Act—Department of Veterans' Affairs Determination 1999/1.Sales Tax Determination STD 1999/2.Social Security Act—Social Security (Threshold Rates) Determination 1999.Taxation Determination TD 1999/1.Workplace Relations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 42 and 43.3344The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 30 December 1998—Statements of compliance—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.Attorney-General's Department and portfolio agencies including Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Administrative Review Council (nil return), Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (nil return), Australian Customs Service, Australian Federal Police, Australian Government Solicitor, Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council, Australian Security Intelligence Organization, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Director of Public Prosecutions, Family Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, High Court of Australia, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Law Reform Commission, National Crime Authority, National Native Title Tribunal, Office of Film and Literature Classification and Office of Parliamentary Counsel.Australian Trade Commission.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio agencies including Australia Council, Australian Broadcasting Authority, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (nil return), Australian Communications Authority, Australian Film Commission, National Archives of Australia, National Film and Sound Archive, National Maritime Museum, National Museum of Australia and SpecialBroadcasting Corporation (nil return).Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.National Capital Authority.Answers to Questions on Notice3346The following answers to questions were circulated:3346(Question No. 224)2243346Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.3346Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—Month Research CommissionedTotal ValueJuly 9624,913August 9615,000April 973,000May 978,200Jul 9724,690Sep 9730,000Feb 9832,231Apr 9811,228Jun 9877,000Aug 9848,904Sep 9850,000Nov 9817,300(2)-(6)—(1) Month Research Commissioned(2) Purpose of Contract(3) OGIA Involvement YES/NO If yes give details(4)(a) No. of Firms Invited to Submit Proposals(4)(b) How many Tender Proposals Received?(5) Name of Firm Selected(6) Estimated or Contract PriceActual amount expendedJuly 1996To evaluate the impact of the first independent national report on the state of Australia's environment entitled Australia: State of the Environment 1996 and of the executive summary to that report.No4NilBELL Dignam Pty Ltd24,85024,913 August 1996(Pilot)To determine how well the Bureau of Meteorology's public weather services meet the needs of the Australian community and to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness of the services.No33Frank Small & Associates15,00015,000April 1997Cleaner Production Awareness—determine the level of community/industry awareness of cleaner production and its benefitsNo11Daniel Edelman—AMR: Quantum Harris3,0003,000May 1997To determine how well the Bureau of Meteorology's public weather services meet the needs of the Australian community and to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness of the services.No33Reark Research Pty Ltd8,2008,200July 1997To determine how well the Bureau of Meteorology's public weather services meet the needs of the Australian community and to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness of the services.No33Reark Research Pty Ltd24,69024,690September 1997Technical background study and evaluation of Breathe the Benefits woodsmoke campaign in Tasmania (to reduce particulate smoke from woodheaters)No33CR Attwater & VJ Thorpe15,00014,750September 1997Technical background study and evaluation of Breathe the Benefits woodsmoke campaign in Western Australia (to reduce particulate smoke from woodheaters)No32CR Attwater & VJ Thorpe15,00015,250February 1998To test and identify messages and material in support of the Natural Heritage Trust communication.No33Australasian Research Strategies7,5007,541 February 1998To determine how well the Bureau of Meteorology's public weather services meet the needs of the Australian community and to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness of the services.No33Reark Research Pty Ltd24,69024,690April 1998Research for a campaign to increase awareness in the Community about Biodiversity and the triggers to achieve attitudinal and behavioural change.No42Consumer Contact10,00011,228June 1998Research associated with Natural Heritage Trust TV advertising.Yes—Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) approval process beginning 2 June 1998.22Australasian Research Strategies77,00077,000August 1998Research on behalf of the community Biodiversity network to test creative concepts for TV commercial.No11Consumer Contact 7,5007,500August 1998Research associated with Natural Heritage Trust TV advertising.No1-Australasian Research Strategies30,00030,000August 1998Research associated with Natural Heritage Trust TV advertising.Yes—Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) approval process beginning 2 June 1998.1-Australasian Research Strategies11,40411,404September 1998To determine how well the Bureau of Meteorology's public weather services meet the needs of the Australian community and to develop strategies to improve the effectiveness of the services.No**AC Nielsen Pty Ltd (take over of Reark Research)50,00050,000 November 1998Research to develop a better understanding of clients' expectations, needs and demand for services from the Australian Biological Resources StudyNo75Sutherland Smith Ringham22,00017,300 (final instalment yet to be paid)* The Company that provided services in May 97, July 97 and February 98 was contracted to continue.3349(Question No. 240)2403349Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short list or some other process).3349Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Department of the Environment and Heritage has provided no contracts to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.3349(Question No. 272)2723349Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract. (4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short list or some other process).3349Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Department of the Environment and Heritage has provided no contracts to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.3349(Question No. 404)4043349Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:Will the Government oppose the allocation of carbon credits, under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Climate Change Convention, for the development of nuclear energy, including construction of associated infrastructure; if so, why.3349Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The information sought by the honourable senator does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. I suggest that he direct his question to my colleague the Hon. Nick Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Technology.3349(Question No. 416)4163349Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 19 February 1999:(1) What is the estimated cost of the delegation which will fly to Great Britain for a week of high level celebrations commemorating Australia's Centenary of Federation in 2000, as reported in the Courier Mail of 16 February 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the 17 councillors whom Mr Tony Eggleton said he expected would be part of the delegation; and (b) who are members of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation.(3) What are the sources of funding of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation.(4) Does the Government agree with the criticisms of the proposal by Professor Ross Fitzgerald that, `the money would be better used to raise awareness of federation within the Queensland community, and presumably the whole Australian community as reported in the Courier Mail of 16 February 1999.3350Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No final decision has been made about composition or size of the proposed Australian delegation. Therefore, no estimate of the cost is possible at this time.(2)(A) As noted above, no final decision has been made about composition or size of the proposed Australian delegation. Some of the Council members will be present in London because they will have duties associated with the commemoration. It is expected other Council members may be present as representatives of their States or Territories; some may be present in a private capacity.(B) The members of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation:Mr Dick Smith (Chairman)Mr Tony Eggleton AO CVO (Chief Executive Officer)Mr Gary (Angry) Anderson AMProfessor Geoffrey Blainey AOMs Phoebe FraserThe Most Reverend Archbishop P J Hollingworth AO OBEProfessor Trang Thomas AMMr Richard Walley OAMState/Territory/Local Government RepresentativesMr Rodney Cavalier, New South Wales (Deputy Chairman)The Hon M A Birrell MLC, VictoriaThe Hon David Hamill MLA, QueenslandThe Hon Robert Lucas MLC, South AustraliaMr Ron Birmingham QC, Western AustraliaThe Hon John White MLC, Tasmania Mrs Betty Churcher AO, Australian Capital TerritoryMr Stephen Hatton MLA, Northern TerritoryCouncillor John Campbell, Australian Local Government Association(3) The National Council for the Centenary of Federation is funded by the Commonwealth Government.(4) Professor Ross Fitzgerald is the Chairman of the Queensland Centenary of Federation Committee which is appointed and funded by the Queensland Government. He was not criticising the National Council's plans for events and celebrations to mark the Centenary which include the London events. His comments concerned the use of funds available to the Queensland Committee.3350(Question No. 425)4253350Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 1 March 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1279 (Senate Hansard , 4 May 1994, p.273):(1) Have the Beeliar Wetlands been listed on the Register of the National Estate, if so; when were they gazetted.(2) If they have not been listed on the Register of the National Estate, why has this not been done, given the former Minister's (Senator Faulkner) commitment that they would be listed for the gazettal notice late in 1994.(3) Given that the guidelines for assessing the priority of assessment of National Estate listing includes reference to whether Commonwealth decisions are pending, why has the Beeliar listing not been given priority for assessment despite the fact that the Commonwealth is committing funds for the development of a major port facility in the region of the Beeliar wetlands at Jervoise Bay.3350Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Beeliar Wetlands were entered in the Interim List of the Register of the National Estate on 6 December 1994 by publication, in the Gazette and the press, by the Australian Heritage Commission of a notice of intention to enter the wetlands in the Register. They have not yet been entered in the Register proper.(2) Before a place can be entered in the Register, the Australian Heritage Commission must give due consideration to any objections to the intention to do so. Objections were received, and after independent assessment, were formally considered by the Commission on 25 November 1996. As a result the Commission decided to redefine the boundaries of the place and re-enter the place in the Interim List as `Beeliar Regional Park and Adjacent Areas'. A notice of intention to register the redefined area was published in the Gazette and press on 24 June 1997. No objections were received to the registration of the redefined area, however issues did arise in relation to the exact boundary of the park as defined by the Western Australian Ministry for Planning. Resolution of these issues is being pursued by the Commission to allow finalisation of the registration of the place.(3) The guidelines referred to by the honourable senator are used by the Commission to set a priority for assessment for the initial step in registration, ie entry in the Interim List. The wetlands are in the Interim List and by virtue of section 31 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 are deemed to be in the Register for the purposes of protection under that Act.3352(Question No. 536)5363352Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.3352Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) $2,632.20(b) Nil(c) These costs are met personally.