1999-03-293912SENATE335301999-03-29The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous33533353The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I wish to inform the Senate of the retirement on Friday, 26 March of Marlene Armstrong, the switchboard supervisor for Parliament House. Marlene arrived in Australia from Canada in 1976 and started her first job in Australia with what was then known as Telecom in the same year. Her job with Telecom required her to work as a telephone operator in the Old Parliament House and she continued after the move to this building in 1988—with all that was involved with doing that.In 1991, Marlene was appointed switchboard supervisor for Parliament House and she has held this position ever since. She is leaving Parliament House to work in Telstra's teleservice office in Canberra. Even those who cannot think what Marlene looks like would know her voice if they rang the switchboard. They will have been well served by her over many years. She has certainly been highly regarded by occupants of the building, particularly senators who rely heavily on the telephone and the assistance provided by the operators in the building.It is true to say that the success and excellent level of customer service provided by all of the switchboard staff is largely a result of Marlene's dedication to her job, her attention to detail, her outstanding supervisory skills and, generally, her commitment to the good operation of the parliament.I am sure I speak on behalf of all senators when I say thank you to Marlene for 26 years of service to the parliament. Service to the parliament, hopefully, comes from senators and members, but there are a lot more people also involved in providing service so the place can operate smoothly. To Marlene we say: thank you for what you have done and best wishes in your new position.Bills3353r7433353Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:33:003353Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:At the end of the motion, add:"but the Senate affirms the resolution passed by the Constitutional Convention in February 1998, which called on the Government to convene a further Constitutional Convention preceded by extensive community consultation if the November 1999 referendum is successful, in the following terms:(1) That this Convention resolves that, if a republican system of government should be introduced by a referendum, at a date being not less than three years or more than five years thereafter the Commonwealth Government should convene a further Constitutional Convention.(2) That two-thirds of such Convention should be directly elected by the people.(3) That the agenda of such Convention would be to: (i) review the operation and effectiveness of any republican system of government introduced by a constitutional referendum; (ii) address any other matter related to the operation of our system of government under republican arrangements, including: (a) the role of the three tiers of government; (b) the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; (c) whether the Commonwealth should have an environment power; (d) the system of governance and proportional representation; (e) whether the mechanism for constitutional change should be altered; (f) constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; (g) equal representation of women and men in parliament; and (h) ways to better involve people in the political process.(4) That the Convention be preceded by an extensive and properly resourced community consultation process, to commence within twelve months of the passage of a referendum to establish a republic in which ideas and responses on the above matters would be actively sought by the Government and Parliament.".When the Senate last considered the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill, I was, as I mentioned at the time, getting up a head of steam over this issue. It is sad in a way that, again, the debate on the bill is being tucked in just before lunchtime. The outcome might be that the average person in Australia, who we know shares an interest in the future and the Constitution, will not know that this legislation is being debated. On Thursday it was tucked in just before lunchtime and again on Monday it has been tucked in just before lunchtime. This means that people in the wider community are not hearing what we are saying on this very important issue.When the debate was interrupted last week, I was talking about part of the contribution by Ms Christine Milne during the Constitutional Convention, Christine being one of the selected representatives during that debate. She was the selected representative for the Australian Greens in Tasmania. Christine supported the motion put forward by the Reverend Tim Costello which was very widely supported in the Constitutional Convention. That amendment was to provide a wider debate. I said I would get back to that amendment. It was that the convention resolve that, if a republican system of government should be introduced by referendum at a date being not less than three years or more than five years thereafter, the Commonwealth government should convene a further Constitutional Convention.The amendment looked at the effectiveness of a republican system, addressed matters in relation to the system of government and stated that it be preceded—this, to me, was one of the most important issues—by an extensive and properly resourced community consultation process to commence within 12 months of the passage of a referendum to establish a republic in which ideas and responses on the above matters should be actively sought by the government and parliament. I would like to see, in the process of passing this bill—and it is clear that there is support in the chamber for its passing—the chamber honouring that decision that was widely supported in the Constitutional Convention. Should the referendum prove that the Australian public are prepared at this stage to support the model that has been presented to them, I would like them to have a knowledge of the other elements, flawed though they might be, that came up through the Constitutional Convention. In this case I would like the decision made by the convention to look at the further process to be honoured.This means that even though many of us were very disappointed at the way the Constitutional Convention was set up, somehow we should not allow the government to simply pick and choose what they think they would use out of the Constitutional Convention and not take it more widely to the people at this stage, which I think would be the appropriate thing to do before we went to a referendum. But that is by the by: it seems I have been overruled on this issue. However, if what we are having is `the model', without further refinement, debate and without consultation going to the community, the very least we need to do is to honour the further process that was set up and widely supported within the Constitutional Convention that, within five years, we start a process that makes sure the community has an involvement and that we start to consider the other elements of the Constitution.If there is no support in the wider community to make sure that our Constitution matches our aspirations, then this will not go any further. If the community says, `We are totally happy with the Constitution that was put together more than 100 years ago, absolutely thrilled, and, although it is flawed, we'll just go along with it and maybe put a few bandaids on it,' then there is nothing that we need to worry about. But if we have a positive referendum, I am sure the wider community is expecting that there will be further discussions and that government funds—that is, taxpayers' money, their money—will be used to allow them to participate in this process. However well designed a Constitutional Convention is—and the last Constitutional Convention was not well designed—it must have the benefit of information from the wider community. In my opinion, it is the wrong thing to do to go to the community with the final question and say, `Take it or leave it.'There is something more that I should say about this second reading amendment. During the Constitutional Convention there was a further amendment moved by a Mr Elliott which looked at including the roles of the three tiers of government; the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; whether the Commonwealth should have an environment power, the system of governance and proportional representation; whether the mechanism for constitutional change should be altered; constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; equal representation of women and men in parliament; and ways to better involve people in the political process. That was added by Mr Elliott and seconded by Cath Moore, who was the only elected Green representative to the Constitutional Convention. I will quote from Cath Moore's contribution at that stage. She was asked whether she wished to second the motion and she said:Yes. I am one of those people who were elected to this Convention on a broad platform, and I welcome this amendment. This is not an exhaustive list; it is merely the beginning of some suggestions that we are putting to a group or a series of groups to take out into the community for community consultation. That is what we are on about, and that is what I hope people will support today.To the people who are afraid of constitutional reform, I say: please be part of the process because, if you believe in the Constitution as it is, it is up to you to get into the community and argue to keep it as it is. But there are others of us who want to see it broadened so that it encompasses some of the things that we have highlighted during this Convention as being important in a move towards a democratic nation, whether or not that nation be a republic.Those words were supported. The motion by Reverend Costello gained support, with the amendment by Mr Elliott. There is a concern that somehow or other with this whole move—which was strongly supported and, as I have mentioned before, the majority of candidates for the Constitutional Convention were people on a maximalist platform—there is some honouring of the desire within the community of Australia to talk about the other issues in our model for democracy.If the government is really interested in the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention which they set up, one would think they would honour that proposal. I do not know what their feelings are on that issue. I am grateful that the indications from the Labor Party are that they are prepared to support this, as are the Australian Democrats. At this stage, I am obviously unaware what Senator Harradine's position will be on this, but it is absolutely important. If we hear a negative response from the government on this issue, then you would have to wonder about whether or not this process is simply one to make a sideshow of the preamble, throw something to the community which is, in many respects, considered to be an unsatisfactory model and then say, `This is your only chance. This is all you get.' I obviously believe the process should be much better but if people believed there was a chance to further discuss the issues of a republic, then we may have some semblance of credibility in relation to the government on this issue.If the government is saying, `We are going to put this referendum to you, take it or leave it, and by the way, the other elements of further community consultation are not part of the package,' then we would have to say, `This is a farce.' I guess that might achieve the government's aim in talking people into not supporting the first model because it is quite clear that those people who believe that a change to a republic—any change, any model—will eventually lead to the positive aspects of constitutional reform may discover that this first step might not be the one to take. It might be very attractive to the government not to leave people with that feeling that there will be further community consultation—some community consultation, not further—and that people will have a chance to put their views.We have all sorts of inquiries in this place. What would be wrong—shock, horror!—with asking people to put in submissions about the Constitution? I know it would be a big pro cess, but constitutional change is a big process. It does need to be properly funded. It does need to take time. That is not an overnight proposal; it is up to five years. I would be very interested to see what the government would say in not supporting that proposal. By the way, that vote in the Constitutional Convention supporting the motion by Reverend Costello plus the amendment was 102 in favour, 16 against and 32 abstentions. I do not think anyone could claim that this was not a very clear vote of support.There is general concern about the commitment of the government to the process of moving towards a republic. I have mentioned the desire for people to talk about broader constitutional reform. But I believe we also need to cover the possibility of the referendum vote not being successful because of the bad process, because it has been put as a take it or leave it matter and because it is a compromise of a compromise. I know there are many people who believe this is not the right process. Because of the potential for that vote on an unsatisfactory model to be lost, I believe the people of Australia need to have a chance to be able to say in the not too distant future, `Okay, not this model but let's look further.'I will also put by way of a third reading amendment a proposal that there should be a threshold question in a plebiscite on the issue of whether Australians wish to move towards a republic at the time of the next federal election. You choose those kinds of times to save the taxpayer money. I do not know of many people who do not want that threshold issue to be debated. Ideally, for many people, that issue should have been considered first.I have looked at ways of trying to include that proposal in the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , but it is very difficult within the wording of the bill. Perhaps the government wrote it like that—who knows. However, if the current model—the compromise of the compromise of the compromise—is not considered by people in Australia to be good enough, the process is not considered to be good enough and needs further work or a number of people either do not like it or feel it needs further work, there must be a way, if the government was honest, of being able to work out whether or not in general the community wished to move in that direction.I now turn to the opposition, who have indicated to me that they will not support this proposal. I will be really interested to find out from the Labor Party why this is the case because, quite frankly, I know there are many people who would otherwise vote Labor who think there should be this threshold question. I know it was Labor's preference that the question be asked first. But, given that that is not the case, I see no reason why, if this model does not get support within the Australian community, we cannot commit to the proposition that we will look further and at least ask in a plebiscite whether or not the community of Australia wants to move in that direction. And then whoever is in government would be able to take the necessary steps to make sure that a proper process takes place. I have run out of time but I really think these are key issues. The Labor Party has to think carefully about their position and who they are representing on this issue.12:48:003356Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise to debate the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 on behalf of the Australian Democrats as their spokesperson on republic issues. I begin by indicating our support for the amendments that have been mooted by Senator Margetts on behalf of the Greens (WA). The Democrats have long argued both in the lead-up to the Constitutional Convention and in recent days with the preamble being released by the Prime Minister that there is a need for great deal of community involvement and consultation in the process of constitutional reform.I am very pleased to hear Mr Elliott's name mentioned in this place. Mr Mike Elliott MLC is the Leader of the Australian Democrats in my home state of South Australia. It is not surprising to me to hear that he was responsible for that amendment to the motion at the Constitutional Convention, looking at a broader area of debate and reform discussion as we move to, hopefully, the next Constitu tional Convention—something that the Democrats support.It gives me pleasure to speak for the first time we have had legislation that relates to the republican referendum that will be taking place in Australia later on this year. I stand here as a member of the Yes Committee that has been recently formed and I am an ardent republican, as indeed is my whole party. The Democrats long ago balloted and committed themselves as a party to supporting the change to an Australian head of state. We all look forward to being involved in what is a broad-ranging and inclusive debate as we head not only to the next millennium but also towards November and hopefully a successful result.I welcome the changes contained in this legislation, which are primarily to facilitate the dissemination of the cases for and against an Australian head of state and, of course, to put the question of the new preamble to our Constitution to referendum. This legislation provides for the questions relating to the transition to a republic and the insertion of a new preamble to be posed on separate ballot papers. The Democrats consider that an important step in ensuring that these issues are dealt with properly and separately and are not confused at the ballot box. I think most people agree with that notion.Both these issues are intensely important and have great political and symbolic value. I think all steps should be taken to ensure they are treated as separate issues. I also note that this bill rectifies an error in the legislation relating to the folding of postal ballots. It replaces an original stipulation where ballot papers had to be folded to conceal candidates' names. I understand that has now been changed to conceal the vote, which seems quite appropriate.In particular, I welcome on behalf of the Democrats the provision which enables the cases for and against the change to a republic, as well as a preamble, to be put on the Internet. Access to information on these issues through as many avenues as possible is something we support. We hope it will lead to a most inclusive and informed debate. For those people in regional and remote areas, younger people and members of the broader community, the Internet is becoming an increasingly important channel and source of information.In the 12 months to November last year, more than four million Australian adults accessed the Internet—approximately one-third of the adult population, which is actually a 49 per cent increase from February 1998. People will note that the Internet was one of the largest sources of information for those members of the community wanting to be informed about the goings on at the Constitutional Convention. Delegates were flooded with email. People accessed the site—I think it was the ABC web site—that provided ongoing information about the Constitutional Convention. That is exciting.I hope that some of the excitement, some of the elation and some of the vigorous debate that was part of the Constitutional Convention in February last year will be recaptured as we head towards November and the referendum. I hope that we will see people talking about this issue in the community in pubs, clubs and schools—you name it. I have already put on record my affection for Mark Warren's slogan—`Put the pub back into republic'—because it is not just a debate for politicians or the elite. It is a debate that has to take place in our community at every grassroots level. So I hope that we will recapture some of that excitement—and the community was excited. Regardless of their political or constitutional views, people were engaged in this debate. I thought it was a good sign and, for that reason, the Democrats support one of the amendments moved today that relates to that.We are on record many times as acknowledging some of the flaws, not of the model that arose from the Constitutional Convention but of the Constitutional Convention itself—the original notion that people should be half elected, half appointed. We put on record very early our concerns about that democratic make-up. However, I believe that, in the end, the Constitutional Convention was a very broad, very representative chamber. Certainly I found it far more representative than the current make-up of the federal parliamentary chambers, and I do not think anyone here would disagree with me. When it came to not only representation of different ages, backgrounds and views but also indigenous and non-indigenous representation, it was exciting for that very reason, and I would like to see that replicated in the form of another Constitutional Convention in future years.Cutting the frayed apron strings tying us to the UK is very much the first step in asserting our unique national identity. The transition to a republic and, of course, the insertion—hopefully—of a new preamble into our Constitution symbolise our development from a colonial outpost to a truly independent nation which acknowledges its full history and, I hope, the legitimate position of the traditional owners of this country.Over the past 100 years, and in the last decade in particular, Australians have engaged in a wide-ranging and passionate debate over our identity and our future. This has canvassed issues such as the degree to which our future lies in Asia, how to cope with globalisation and reform of our social and economic institutions. In my opinion, all of these issues and more are encompassed by the republic debate. While some have denigrated the republican debate as a somewhat second order issue, one more to do with symbols than with political and economic decisions, I do not think the importance of symbols in our self-perception can be underestimated. I believe it is a crucial issue, and it is a crucial time to be considering this change, as we move closer to the centenary of Federation and the new millennium.Over the course of the century, we have seen massive changes—radical changes—in policy. We have seen the abandonment of a white Australia policy and opened our shores to waves upon waves of new Australians. We have discarded terra nullius and recognised the need for reconciliation between Australia's indigenous and non-indigenous people. We have adopted universal suffrage and we have rejected discrimination on the basis of race, disability, gender, age and sexuality—not quite enough when it comes to sexuality, but we have got a private member's bill to deal with that issue. It is important that the outdated and discarded symbols and institutions that we have are replaced with ones more appropriate to our needs as a mature nation.The passage of this legislation enabling the referendum through parliament will afford opportunities to scrutinise various problems that may exist with the model. One of the primary concerns that the Democrats have with the model in its current form is the diminution of the role of the Senate. It is something that I put on record very strongly at the Constitutional Convention, and it is something that Senator Andrew Murray and other Democrat senators have put on record. If, through the combined efforts of the range of republicans, the referendum is successful and we achieve a republic, I hope that we will adhere to the commitment made at the Constitutional Convention to a second Constitutional Convention—a sequel of ConCon or `son of ConCon'—to review the operation of the model and to address further issues of wide constitutional change. I hope that this second Constitutional Convention will be just as important, if not more important, than the original, because this will give us an opportunity to evaluate alternatives, remedy the flaws and look towards greater, broader constitutional reform. This referendum is a vital part of a process to achieve a Constitution that truly reflects the state of the Australian nation.Another equally important part of this process is incorporating a more expansive representative preamble into our Constitution which, hopefully, recognises the values that underpin the society that we have come to be and wish to remain, and which recognises the original owners and occupants of this land. The recognition of civil values such as representative parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, equality before the law, cultural diversity and respect for the environment are hardly radical in the context of today's society, and they are certainly worth protecting and enshrining in our Constitution.We are already a signatory to a number of international treaties giving effect to these enduring and inalienable rights, and we should not be afraid to recognise them in our Constitution, even if we persist with the clause that nullifies their legal effect. So, if people are really scared about putting some of these words in, that is a fall-back to reassure them.I acknowledge that drafting a preamble is a very difficult task. It involves determining the common vision and the values of a nation and expressing them in a way that has the potential to make us feel proud, inspired and wanting to celebrate that vision. If ever there was a document that should engage as many Australians as possible in its drafting—a document that most Australians should feel proud about and have a role in creating—it is the preamble. But the preamble released last week by the Prime Minister can only be considered a draft, surely. We cannot be expected to go to a referendum with a preamble written by the Prime Minister and one or two of his mates. That is unacceptable and I suggest the majority of the community believes that too.We do welcome the Prime Minister's offer for some community comment up until 30 April, and my leader, Senator Meg Lees, has written to the Prime Minister taking him up on that invitation. But it is not enough. We have got to ensure that this process is given back to the people and that Australians have an opportunity. I do not know what the Prime Minister's mailbag has looked like in the last few days but, in speaking to other members, all of our mail has been on this issue—Australians having ideas, making suggestions, expressing their concerns and wanting a say. The Prime Minister should be statesmanlike enough to recognise that and to at least involve them, if not incorporate their views. We recognise that the legislative timetable on this issue is extremely tight but we would like to see greater enthusiasm from government members for people to have a say.Criticising sectors of the community as `narrow, petty, short-sighted' is absolutely outrageous. That is something we heard on record from the Prime Minister last week. A preamble is of little worth unless it is inclusive and resonant. Women, indigenous representatives and members of the ethnic community were among the first to criticise the draft released. Refusing to `placate special interest groups' is not what the process of drafting a preamble is about.The lack of full recognition of the ongoing rights of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is a serious omission. Their place in the preamble should be about more than simply an acknowledgment of their continuing culture. Honouring their culture is one thing, but recognising their ongoing rights and custodianship of this land is more than appropriate. The Prime Minister began his second term with a commitment to reconciliation. A refusal on his part to consider greater recognition of the rights and status of Australia's indigenous people will see him once again miss out on a great opportunity for achieving meaningful reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.Similarly, he should be wary of assuming that words that might come easily to him and might resonate with people of his generation will be as acceptable to everyone in our uniquely diverse Australian community. Everyone acknowledges that the use of the term `mateship' has drawn criticism. I acknowledge it is a colloquial term that has been included to evoke the camaraderie—if you like—that has come to define this nation and the relationships among Australians. However, it is a blokey term. It is one which is not popularly used by women, indigenous people or young people, and it has struck a jarring note. I put on record that people disagree with that view and they are entitled to do so. The people who have expressed concern about those words—certainly to my office—have particularly been women, young people and indigenous Australians. It has struck too much of a jarring note to be considered for inclusion.I draw the Senate's attention to the article by Adele Horin in the Sydney Morning Herald over the weekend, who talks about the distinction between friendship and mateship. It is quite a persuasive article. One of the best aspects of this article is the sentence: `Language matters.' Indeed it does. Language is powerful. It is symbolic. The Prime Minister knows this, otherwise he would not have used certain words and not others—certain words that he may have considered to be a rebuke to political correctness. He acknowledges the value and importance of words.It is important for us in this chamber to recognise that language evolves. Language changes, too. Words take on different meanings. Words that were relevant maybe decades or even a century ago may not be used today or may have different definitions or evoke different feelings and ideas, depending on who is using them and who is hearing them. So let us not pretend that language does not matter. Language also has the ability to inspire, and that is what we should be seeking to do with the use of language in a preamble.Perhaps most strange was the Prime Minister's claim of the rebuke to political correctness. In the past, this government has decided that certain values and aspirations are politically correct, thus discrediting reconciliation, feminism, protection of the environment and immigration. I do not even know if multiculturalism is still a word that is utilised by government or not. I remember that at one stage it was considered not appropriate by some members of government. So we do acknowledge that language changes; language has power. It is symbolic.However, all these values were recognised at the Constitutional Convention by delegates of all persuasions and from a diverse range of backgrounds. They all considered them as worthy of inclusion in the preamble. The Constitutional Convention recommended references to federalism, the rule of law, cultural diversity, the unique land and environment of this country, equality of all before the law, gender equality and the continuing rights of Australia's indigenous people. None of these has really found expression in the Prime Minister's draft preamble.Talking to the SBS Insight program last Thursday evening, Dr Brendan Nelson MP made the following, quite remarkable, statement:Perhaps we are choosing the wrong vehicle through which to achieve the things that we all aspire to be. Perhaps in fact we need an Australian declaration of values, beliefs and national aspirations, and the preamble of the Constitution may not be the right place to do that. This misunderstands the nature of a preamble, which should be about recognising the shared values, rights and aspirations of our nation. Rather than rebuking fashion, it would be far better to recognise the continuing, inalienable and universal rights that are the true protection for us all against prejudice. These are rights that have already been recognised. We have actually bound ourselves by them in declarations in international treaties such as the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.Our vision in framing a new preamble should be bold and broad, covering the elements of our way of life and society which we cherish, such as our rich ethnic, cultural and spiritual diversity, our unique and fragile environment, the rule of law and the equality of all before it. The founders of our nation were not timid in their vision, nor should we be at the turn of the next century. The Prime Minister should be commended—and I do put this on record—for putting the question of a new preamble to the people. It is a bold move, a positive move of constitutional reform, appropriate to our move to a new millennium and the celebration of our nation's centenary.However, the Prime Minister's part in this process is largely over. Having presented his version, it is now time to hand over this process to all Australians. Only by seeking comments from all Australians will we be able to discover what our common vision is and what our common values are, and to enunciate them in a form likely to gain sufficient support at referendum. Australians may not take up this challenge. I note that one senator suggested last week that the whole process was pretty dull. I am not sure who that is a reflection on. Nevertheless, whether the process was dull or not, some people might not be interested in this debate. But if people are, let us give them the opportunity to have a say; they must be given that opportunity. It is the Australian people who will ultimately decide whether the draft preamble is acceptable.The reaction to this early draft suggests much change is required if we are to secure a yes vote. But like many people, I am excit ed by this process. I am cautiously optimistic that we are going to see an amended version of that preamble go to referendum, partly as a result of modifications suggested by the people and other legislators and decided by the parliament. I am looking forward to a vigorous debate and discussion. I am cautiously optimistic that we will resolve our differences over words and principles to give form to our vision of a truly independent nation and that our words will sing.13:07:003361Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to commend the previous two speakers, Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja, for the positive contribution they have made to this all important debate on the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. It is a debate about the direction of Australian democracy and the direction and cohesion that we as a people, as a republic, take as we go into the next millennium. It is also about the process that we undertake to ensure that the best comes of this historic opportunity to redesign the Australia that we are all so committed to and proud of.Hovering above all of this is an impending feeling that there will be failure, that the process is not proceeding correctly. In this chamber last year I held strongly that, at the outset, there ought to have been a referendum asking the people of Australia whether or not they wanted a republic. The question ought to have been, in essence, whether or not we wanted a foreign head of state to remain as the head of state of this country. I have no doubt that such a referendum would have passed. The people of Australia would have wanted a republic. From there we ought to have been proceeding, through vigorous public debate, to the form of that republic and what else we might do about a Constitution which is showing shortcomings a century after it was devised by the men who took on that task.That is why I will be supporting Senator Margetts's amendment at the end of proceedings on this legislation that, if the referenda fail at the end of this year because of the shortcomings in the process, there nevertheless be another referendum putting the simple question to the people of Australia about a republic—a plebiscite. If the referenda do fail I feel that, under those circumstances, the people of Australia will nevertheless want it to be known that the time has come for Australia to become a republic.I will also be supporting Senator Margetts's excellent amendment calling for the findings of the Constitutional Convention to be implemented. This is an important matter. A year ago we were debating the set-up of that Constitutional Convention, and there was great criticism not only about the form of voting for delegates to the Constitutional Convention but also about the fact that the government was loading the convention. I maintain that all delegates to that convention ought to have been elected. Nevertheless, the convention proceeded and I might add, and you will remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I changed my vote in this chamber, along with Senator Harradine, to ensure that the convention did proceed.What we are now witnessing, however, is selectivity as to the outcomes of that convention as far as the government is concerned. We are not seeing the full outcome of that convention, as expressed by a diverse group of people getting together and coming to an agreement with a great deal of heartache, being followed up by the government. That was inherently the Prime Minister's promise, and that is what we should now be seeing.Senator Margetts has brought forward a second reading amendment which would put into effect the outcomes that the people who were at the Constitutional Convention required if they were going to give assent to the procedure now being undertaken towards a republic. These are important matters. Not least was the requirement that, in the event that a republic were voted in, there be a second Constitutional Convention where, after a maximum taking of opinion, debate and dissemination of information to foster that debate, the people of Australia would have a say in the changes to the Constitution. These changes could relate to important things, like the role of the three tiers of government, the rights and responsibilities of citizens—we do not have a bill of rights in this country—and whether the government should have an environment power.You know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that we are seeing legislation before this parliament at the moment that removes a huge amount of the environmental powers and obligations to international treaties from the federal government and puts them back to the states. So we have a government that is actually going against the spirit of an aggregation of environment power, a power and responsibility of the Commonwealth when it comes to issues of national importance like the forests, the environmental ethos of the indigenous people of this country, our global responsibilities on issues such as global warming and our need to ensure that we reverse the degradation of the environment of this wonderful land of ours in the coming century.The delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted further discussion involving the people of Australia about the system of government and proportional representation; in other words, a fairer system of democracy in this nation—that we should catch up with the rest of the world and more advanced, more representative forms of government. Other issues for discussion are: whether the mechanism for constitutional change should be altered—largely, whether people should have more say; constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; equal representation of women and men in parliament, an important debate which has been raging for decades in Europe and which is a very good one for us to take up in this country; and ways to better involve people in the political process.The motion that called for that second Constitutional Convention was put forward by Mr Tim Costello and seconded by the then Tasmanian Greens leader, Christine Milne. It is important that we honour that outcome of the convention because it was known by, in particular, the government and the Labor Party that, without that motion succeeding, the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention would not have occurred—the yes vote would not have been there.I will be seeking from both the government and the opposition during the committee stage of this debate a renewal of commitment to those outcomes at the Constitutional Convention. I do not want to be part of a process which welshes on the commitment made at that convention by all parties, including the government, to a further Constitutional Convention aimed at implementation of the outcomes of ongoing public debate about the direction in which our nation should be headed.That brings me to the matter of the preamble itself. The Prime Minister has arrogated, with some very limited advice, the business of writing a preamble. I can understand his excitement about that. I can understand that he wanted to be remembered as the inspiration for a key piece of national identity in terms of the constitution. But it was very likely to fail in anybody's hands and, in this Prime Minister's hands, it has failed.The preamble that he has released does not excite the imagination or the passion of Australians as a whole. It has excited more division than it has excited cohesion. It has clear shortcomings which ought not to have had the Prime Minister's imprimatur. It would have been a much better process to have established a means of enabling representatives of the community to have an input into a preamble and, as other speakers have suggested, to have at least opened up the opportunity for there to be a number of preambles that could go to the people. That would not have been too difficult.A couple of decades ago, the people had a choice of national anthem. I must say it was a surprise; I thought Waltzing Matilda would have got up. But it was the very words of Waltzing Matilda—not the magic of the melody—that was thought inappropriate by the voters, who gave us Advance Australia Fair instead. That was a judicious vote by Australians at that plebiscite. As Senator Stott Despoja says, the power of words is almightily important in these matters when we think of ourselves as a people and as a nation. That would have been a better way to go. I would advise the Prime Minister to reconsider now while there is time.I have noted the numerous preambles that have been in the press and elsewhere in the time since the Prime Minister released his preamble. In my opinion—and it is no better than that of anybody else—the majority of those preambles are superior to that which the Prime Minister has released. I am charmed, to say the least, by the inordinate clarity of thinking of young Australians in this matter. On a number of occasions I have seen preambles coming from high school children in Australia which have the magic that we are seeking and which have the feeling that we are seeking.I do not know whether it is because, as we get older, we tend to get harder and tend to lose the beauty of language and commitment, and the feeling of oneness and direction which seems to be so well evoked by these young scribes; but I would feel much safer if a number of them were brought together and told to polish some of the work—although it does not need polishing—to find a common result. That could be put out with the Prime Minister's preamble in the referendum. I would bet my boots that the young people's preamble would win out in those circumstances.I endorse wholly the feeling of frustration that the Prime Minister's preamble does not do more than `honour' the culture and long-time relationship with Australia of the indigenous people of this country. That is not the stuff of reconciliation, let alone the stuff of true, abiding and full recognition of the phenomenal contribution that the indigenous people of Australia make to us all as a nation. It does not recognise theirs as the fundamental culture that marks us out in this world, let alone their sovereign rights as the indigenous people who pre-dated the coming of the rest of us in this wonderful community. Their relationship with the land is such an important talisman. It is a relationship we need to re-establish if we are going to avoid going into the next century with the degradation of the environment that has been catastrophic in the two centuries since non-indigenous people arrived in this country.The Constitutional Convention called on the writers of the preamble to acknowledge that environment. They said that the preamble should have an `affirmation of respect for our unique land and environment'. What did the Prime Minister do with that? Rather than an affirmation of respect for our unique land and environment, he came up with these words:Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.He came up with a comment on history. The Prime Minister apparently does not have a relationship with or love of the land itself—our vast open spaces; our magnificent river systems; our wonderful coastlines; our grand forests, including the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere, and rainforests; and our unique wildlife, which is as diverse as the environments of this country it inhabits.There is no feeling of that in here; it is absent. It is not only an opportunity missed but it is an opportunity denied because the Prime Minister, and sadly those few who were helping advise him, apparently do not have that connection, that passion, which I think is central to this nation's feeling of difference from the rest of the world as well as its feeling of pride in itself. And no-one could go beyond the passion of the indigenous people and their spiritual relationship with the land in measuring that passion. But you only have to look at the post-invasion poetry and song and history of this country to know how important that heart relationship we all have with the land is. To have it missing, to have it denied by the Prime Minister's preamble, even after the call of the Constitutional Convention to make sure it was specifically there, is not good enough. It is a failure to rise to the occasion. It is actually an indication that, for whatever reasons, the prime ministerial leadership in this country is not consonant with the feelings of the people of this country as a whole.I will go to the second last sentence of the Prime Minister's preamble. There is a lot more I could say about it. The sentence says:Australia's democratic and federal system of government exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology nor invoked against achievement.Come again? Ask the average punter, myself included, what that means. I dare to say: ask the Prime Minister what that means. If there is going to be one thing that should be basic to constructing a preamble, it is clear, unambiguous language; clear, unambiguous English.Let me deconstruct part of this sentence. Is the Prime Minister really meaning that under law Australians have an equal dignity which may never be invoked against achievement? That is what this says. So is our dignity on the altar of achievement seekers? Does the dignity of our people as a whole have to be sacrificed to those who want to achieve their ends by knocking down forests, by ripping up national parks, by riding across the top of indigenous people's wishes or by overlooking the interests of minorities? Is that really what the ethos of this country is? That is what the Prime Minister is saying here, if you ask me.I am not going to sign off on such a poorly written sentence which, if dissected, has such a dastardly outcome. It is almost incredible that that sentence could have been forthcoming from the Prime Minister's office as an offering as to what might inspire Australians. Again we see the blinkered vision of the Prime Minister. He means well. He wants to see this nation united under his vision. But, because of his vision, he comes up with a tract for division.We have a long way to go in this debate. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to take a greater reference back to the Australian people, back to the Constitutional Convention and even to the wider field of view there is in this place before we are saddled with that sort of preamble.13:26:003364Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on this bill, the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The basic purpose of this bill is to provide a more flexible arrangement for the expenditure of funds in the education program to the Australian public other than what is normally provided for in the normal referendum legislation, which is to fund a yes case and a no case to be circulated during the last period leading up to polling day. We in the opposition have no objection to the arrangements in this bill as far as that funding arrangement is concerned. As I understand it, the proposals came out of recommendations from the Constitutional Convention held some 14 months ago, and very successfully, in the Old Parliament House here in Canberra.I rise to speak on this bill as a person who has had a particular interest, even before I was a senator, in the issue of whether Australia should be a republic. As far as modesty permits me, I say that one of the facts I am proud of in my political life is that I moved the resolution at the 1991 national conference of the Labor Party committing the Labor Party to a policy to achieve a republic in Australia by the centenary of Federation, 1 January 2001. In those first years after 1991 I took on, with several others, the responsibility of publicly promoting that desirable change. Of course, I was delighted when the Australian Republican Movement was established and I became a founding member.I was particularly delighted when Mr Keating, in coming to the prime ministership at the end of 1991, immediately began promoting the need for Australia to become a republic and to have its own constitutional identity without equivocation or confusion. Mr Keating has to be given great credit for advancing the republican cause like no other person has in Australia's history. Just as Sir Henry Parkes was considered the father of Federation for the work he did in the 1890s, Paul Keating will certainly be recognised as the father of the republic when it is achieved in the near future.The case is unarguable that we need to have an Australian head of state in our republic. It seems to me that most Australians now agree when you ask them, `Do you think we should have a citizen of our own as our head of state?' If you ask them that or whether it should be a citizen of another country, the answer—by nearly two-thirds of the Australian people—is for an Australian head of state. When the question is asked, `Should you have a republic?' the numbers are less because the republic has different connotations in different people's minds. But there is no doubt that any sensible Australian wants to have the honour of having one of their own—or, as Paul Keating said, `one of us'—as our president and as our head of state.It is amazing that some people say, `We have a de facto republic anyway because the Governor-General is the head of state.' If you read the Constitution—of which I have a copy here signed by Sir William Deane, the Governor-General, on my swearing in as a senator for my present term on 20 August 1966—it is quite clear the Governor-General is not our head of state. He represents the present Queen of the United Kingdom, as her representative in Australia. I think it is one of the great fictions that the monarchists have used to say, `We don't need to change the Constitution—we are a republic in all but name.' If we are one in all but name, why not make it clear that we are a republic and have an Australian citizen as the head of state?Some people say that, in constitutional and in recognition terms, it does not matter. It does matter. It is demeaning. In recent times we have had examples of how demeaning it is not to have our own citizen as our head of state. For example, in the early part of this decade Bill Hayden, as the Governor-General, visited France to be part of the commemorations—I think on the 75th anniversary—of those awful battles in which tens of thousands of young Australians died in the First World War on the Somme. He was going there to pay tribute to that contribution to the defence of France in the First World War. But what did the French government do? They treated him as a low level official. He was accorded no recognition of a head of state.Some junior clerk, I understand, from the French government met him at the airport. He was given no recognition as head of state because the French government said quite rightly, `You are not the head of state. You only represent the head of state.' I find that particularly demeaning in view of the fact that there are 40,000 dead Australians lying in France who over 3½ years heroically defended French sovereignty from German invasion.We have another example with Mr Hayden. He was planning a visit to Kazakhstan, one of the new central republics formed out of the break-up of the old Soviet Union. When a notice was sent to the Kazakhstan government that he wanted to visit, they said, `Who is Bill Hayden, the Governor-General?' and someone said, `He represents the Queen of the United Kingdom as Australia's head of state.' So the Kazakhstan government sent a note to the British Ambassador in Kazakhstan: `Can you find out whether the Queen agrees that Bill Hayden visit this state as her representative to our country?' So the British Ambassador had the privilege of passing a message back to the Kazakhstan government saying, `We think it is all right for Bill Hayden to visit.' Is that the sort of business that we want to continue with? This is absolutely demeaning to Australia.Someone has said—and Gough Whitlam made this change in 1973—that we have the Queen now being called `the Queen of Australia'. She is only the Queen of Australia when she is in Australia. She can never be the Queen of Australia anywhere else in the world. And the future heir to the throne, Prince Charles—as the next King of the United Kingdom and our head of state—is now on the public record as saying he supports the agricultural policy of the European Community. That policy absolutely discriminates against Australian farmers. How can we put up with having the next head of state of Australia going around saying, `I favour French, Belgian and German farmers ahead of Australian farmers'?It is an extraordinary position to be in. Any country with self-confidence in what it wants would say, `Never. No. Let's get rid of this fiction,' and whenever I again here somebody saying, `We really have a republic already. We do not need to bother about it because the Governor-General is our head of state,' that will be a fiction that has to be hit right on the head. The monarchists and their fellow travellers on this are just making a deliberately confusing statement to defend a system that only a third, at the most, of Australians now support.I have to say that the Queen has been absolutely impeccable on this issue. She has said it is a matter for the Australian people to decide and that, if they decide to have a republic, she will respect that. But put it around the other way: we now have a head of state whom only 30 per cent of Australians support. Even if the referendum was unfortunately lost later this year, how could you go on having a head of state whom only 30 per cent of the people support clearly and positively? So I make it clear here that the fiction has to come to an end and that, for those of us who have argued for change since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the time has come for this referendum.The next argument is about the minimalist approach versus a wider constitutional change. I have never argued that in this case we should have wider constitutional change because I do not want to confuse the argument—it is tough enough now to get constitutional change in Australia. But I want to make it clear that many of the other suggestions for constitutional change that this debate has created I want dealt with over the next decade, because the Constitution and many areas of managing and governing Australia are deficient for the 21st century.On this issue I support the Constitutional Convention and what I would call—as have others—the minimalist approach, where the parliament, by a two-thirds majority, selects our head of state. That change is a minimal one to the Constitution. But do not let it be said that I do not want to support other constitutional change; I want to do it at a digestible level with which the Australian people are comfortable.I also have to believe that, if we get the minimalist approach through to change to a republic, that will be a major positive psychological change for the Australian people. They will therefore be able to look more sensibly at other changes that we need, knowing that we have changed to a republic but the country has not come to an end and there has not been an end to our democracy, and that it will strengthen our democracy.The arguments for an appointed president versus an elected president are overwhelmingly in favour of an appointed president. If you have an elected president, you will get a politician. You will get either a Liberal Party or a Labor Party politician, because those parties are the only two organisations that can run an election campaign across Australia to get a majority vote to get somebody elected, and they are the only ones who will have the money and the resources.The public want to have an elected president because they do not want a politician; but, ironically, that is what they will get. Having an appointed president from a joint sitting of the parliament, with two-thirds from both sides, means the appointment of a partisan politician will not occur, because one of the major parties will say no. That will give us a non-partisan, non-politician president; and there are many excellent people in our community who, I am sure, would fill the president's position with distinction and with great pride for all of Australia.I want to refer now to the present Prime Minister's role. Just as Paul Keating will be termed through the ages as the `father of the republic', John Howard will be remembered only as one of the few people who have done everything possible to stop the republic occurring. He makes no bones about the fact that he is a monarchist. He has sought every possible way to interfere with the process and argue against it.His sudden conversion to finding a new preamble is only because he has suddenly realised that, come the referendum, he will be in the position of saying no. He as Prime Minister will put himself in the lame duck position of saying no. How can he get out of this? Let us have thrown onto the field of play another idea which he can say yes to. Therefore, let us have a new preamble, something the Constitutional Convention did recommend. But he wanted to draft it himself, and what a terrible mess he made of it last week. It is a preamble that in a negative way describes every one of John Howard's prejudices about what he thinks our society should be.Can anyone imagine any student from our high schools, our universities, our primary schools or anywhere else going off and trying to learn his preamble by heart to be able to quote it? Not on your nelly! It is impossible to learn by heart, unless you spend hours and hours. There is no rhyme or rhythm, no `magic' to it, as Senator Brown said. There is no poetry to it. There is no memorable phrase—other than in the negative about what you would not want. Fancy trying to remember the word `fashion'. I thought that he must have consulted Carla Zampatti, the spouse of the former Liberal member for North Sydney. How long will the word `fashion' last down the ages? This is his code for saying, `I do not want political correctness written into the Constitution.' And neither should political correctness be written into the Constitution: it should be a positive affirmation of how we see ourselves as people.But John Howard could not get even that right. One can imagine him sitting there, scratching lines out, finding words that meet all of his prejudices about what he thinks there is in Australia. The only thing that he did not put into the preamble was the word `incentivation'. When he was leader back in the late 1980s, he invented a campaign slogan of `incentivation' which lasted all of a day before it was laughed off the stage. There was one other phrase that he did not put in, and I was waiting to see a mention of the white picket fence in front of everybody's home being in the preamble, because that is about the level of his vision of what he wants for Australia.He did not have those words in but he had all of his other prejudices written in. As a result, this preamble has been roundly condemned. As Senator Brown and other speakers, such as Senator Bolkus the other day, said: ordinary Australians have, off their own bat, made a much better effort of drafting a potential preamble than this Prime Minister could ever do and has ever done. The only way that he is going to save himself from complete humiliation is to quietly withdraw this suggestion.He ought to take note from his great mentor that he always looks to, Sir Robert Menzies. In 1966, Sir Robert Menzies proposed that our new decimal currency be called a `royal'. He announced this with great fanfare. Everybody laughed at him. Everybody fell on top of him within a week, and Sir Robert had to reluctantly admit that, although `dollar' was an American word, it was the only one that Australians were going to cop for their new decimal currency; and so he quietly withdrew the suggestion of the royal. I suggest to John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, that he should quietly withdraw the preamble, go to a proper consultation with all Australians and get a decent preamble.On the preamble issue, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, I want to say that there is one area of it that I have a strong view about. I do not think reference to a religious figure, the phrase `almighty God' or `God', should be used in the preamble. Our Australian community is a secular state, guaranteeing the right of religious freedom—whatever religion it is—for all of our citizens. They have the complete right to their religion, if they so choose it. About 25 per cent of the community—and I am one of them—do not choose to support a form of organised religion or a spiritual being.I absolutely respect the right of others to have a different view; but, as soon as you suggest that you should put one form of religion or one definition of God into a preamble of the Constitution, I think we move away from a commitment to absolute freedom of religion: you are trying to predict what the religion should be. I note in the Constitution, drafted in the preamble, there was mention 100 years ago of the phrase `almighty God'. I think they made a mistake even then. But time has moved on and, in the next century, I would hope that with a new preamble people would understand that not mentioning almighty God would not mean that we are against freedom of religion but that it is in fact enhancing freedom of religion. This bill, as I said in my opening remarks, is just the beginning of other bills that will come in, in preparation for the holding of the referendum.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What is your response to our third reading amendment? You haven't said anything about it.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Our spokesman will respond to your amendment. I am not the spokesman for the Labor Party on this bill in the Senate; Senator Bolkus is, and he will respond accordingly. I agree with the thrust of this bill in making a more flexible arrangement for funding for the coming referendum campaign. I believe that it is the start of a process that will lead to a referendum being carried in about November this year to establish an Australian republic.I look forward to that republic being established, a president—an outstanding Australian citizen—being appointed by a two-thirds majority of this parliament. I still look forward to the first official function of the new president of the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic being the declaring open of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. That would be a much more appropriate person than the suggestion of John Howard, who is trying to grab the opening of the Olympic Games for himself, because he is jammed and does not want to have to invite the Queen to do it as our head of state. Australians want an Australian to open the Olympic Games; they want our head of state to do it, not John Howard, not the Queen. I look forward to the opportunity to see that occur with the successful carriage of the referendum in November of this year.13:46:003368Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 that is before the Senate deals with matters that are ancillary to the question of Australia becoming a republic. It deals with public funding for a public education exercise, the public funding of the yes and no cases, and also the two separate questions to be asked—one in relation to the republic and one in relation to the preamble.These are very important matters indeed, and I thank senators from the minor parties and the opposition for their contribution. I did not really detect any opposition to those matters that I have just mentioned. But there was a great deal said on the preamble and generally the question of a republic. Those matters are best left for other legislation which will be coming before the Senate in due course.In relation to the Greens' second reading amendment, this government undertook to pick up the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention held last year and to follow that through. The Constitutional Convention came up with a model for a republic, and that model will be put forward in legislation. Although it was not in the terms of reference of the Constitutional Convention the question of a preamble was also raised at that convention, and there was a recommendation that a preamble be considered as well. The government decided to take that on board and accordingly there is now the second question of whether or not we have that preamble.The government has stood by its undertaking to take up the suggested model put by the Constitutional Convention and has gone even further to take up the question of a preamble. Indeed, the question of holding a referendum was part of the government's platform for the last election and it is therefore appropriate that the government honour that undertaking.The government is not persuaded to support the Greens' second reading amendment. The question is one which pre-empts the outcome of the referendum and is best resolved after the referendum has been held. The government is of the view that it has stood by its undertaking to the Australian people in relation to the recommendation made by the Constitutional Convention and that this question of any further action is one which is best resolved after the result of the referendum is known.I can also foreshadow that the government is not persuaded to support the further amendment, which is of course a separate one moved by the Greens, that there be a plebiscite at the next election. The government would say that that is really superfluous to the referendum being held this year. The referendum being held this year will cost in excess of $60 million and if one were to have a plebiscite at the time of the next election, one which would have an appropriate mail-out, there would be a cost of $8 million to $9 million.Leaving the cost of it aside, there will be a full debate this year on the question of whether Australia becomes a republic or not. There will be a public education campaign. No doubt there will be parliamentary scrutiny by way of parliamentary debate and parliamentary committee, the yes and no cases will be sent out by the AEC, and also there will be the two respective arguments being pursued by the yes and no cases. So the government is of a view that this whole year will see the question of Australia becoming a republic being fully debated and that a plebiscite to be held in the future is a matter which is not appropriate to be determined at this point in time. As with the previous amendment moved by the Greens, it is a question best determined once we know the outcome of the referendum in November.13:51:003369Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—I have sheet 1297 and sheet 1298 before me. With respect to 1298, which is an amendment calling on the government to hold another plebiscite in case this one does not succeed, the opposition's view is that we will cross that bridge when we get to it. We are more committed to ensuring that this first referendum is successful. In terms of any policy we would adopt in case it is not successful, we will announce that at an appropriate time after this referendum.Given the events in South Australia over the last two or three days, we should be a little more optimistic about the success of this proposal. The ARM in South Australia is regrouping and that could enhance the opportunity of the proposal. In fact, and I did not know this, it is regrouping to such an extent that Senator Schacht has been elected to the committee of the ARM, so our confidence has strengthened with respect to the proposal before the people later in November.With respect to Senator Margetts's first amendment, on sheet 1297, we are committed to an ongoing process of constitutional reform, and that amendment is one that we can support and do support. It is one that commits the parliament and the nation to continuing consultation and continuing amendments to our Constitution. We have tried to change it on a number of occasions and have not been successful. But it is my personal view that the thing that we need to do, to lay the ground work for constitutional reform in this country, is to develop a culture of accepting change and the need for change and for people not to be afraid of changing the Constitution. I think Senator Margetts's proposal goes a little way towards that and we support the amendment on sheet 1297.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3369The bill.13:55:003369Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In relation to cost, can the minister inform us what the money is to be spent on? I was very disappointed that we had to wait some time for the explanatory memorandum. Even though we were supposed to be dealing with the bill on Thursday, we did not get the explanatory memorandum until the last minute. However, the explanatory memorandum mentions the issue of cost and it includes the fact that the anticipated cost of the proposals associated with the bill is $19.5 million.The indication in the explanatory memorandum is that $19.5 million will be expended on proposed public information activities; $4.5 million is to be spent on a neutral public education program; and $15 million is to be spent for yes and no advertising campaigns that will be conducted by committees drawn from delegates to the Constitutional Convention—I assume that is the previous Constitutional Convention.What is a neutral public education program? As far as I can ascertain, it means a program explaining and promoting the current Constitution. Even if I believed that the rest of the $15 million would give a fair spread of the opinions within the community, which of course it does not because it goes back to the limitations from the previous Constitutional Convention—that the issues are still about minimal change or no change—you would have to ask the minister whether it is reasonable that $4.5 million goes to their side, that is, explaining and promoting the status quo. Is not the intent that the government is going to use taxpayers' money, dividing it between minimal change and no change—leaving out the maximalist option; we have heard all of that opinion already—and putting more taxpayers' money into promoting or explaining the no change option?13:57:003370Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The public education campaign is not designed to promote one side or the other. In fact, what it will do is explain the current system to the people of Australia so that they have something with which to compare the proposed republic—that is, the question they will be facing in November. The second part of it is to outline the referendum process, that is, the process by which we will hold the referendum, and explain events leading up to that question in November. It is a thoroughly reasonable approach to let people know how the questions will be handled. The third aspect of that public education campaign will be to explain the model that is being put forward.The referendum task force, which is comprised of the Attorney-General and me, has been looking at the question of a referendum as a whole. It is envisaged that we will have a panel of experts who will be advising as to the wording of the public education campaign, and that will ensure there is neutrality. The make-up of that panel is yet to be decided. The public education program will be embarked upon, hopefully, in the near future.It is not a question of pushing one side or the other; the $15 million is reserved for that. There will be $7.5 million for the yes case and $7.5 million for the no case. The Prime Minister has already announced the composition of those two respective committees, which are made up of people from the Constitutional Convention who represent those points of view.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice337033703370Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister agree with the statement by investment banker Merrill Lynch—reported in the Financial Review on 26 March—that failure by the government to remove interest withholding tax from Commonwealth and semi government bonds would be `confusing at best and a major disincentive at worst' for offshore investors in Australia? Does the Assistant Treasurer share these concerns, and does he agree with the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation that the withholding tax on government bonds should be scrapped?3370Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The questions raised by Senator Conroy are issues which are currently before the Ralph committee—matters on which the public are now invited to make submissions. From memory, those submissions are required to be filed by about 16 April. As I have said on a number of occasions, it would be very wise to await the outcome of the determination—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why is Hockey commenting?WW4Senator KEMP—If you want to find out why Mr Hockey is commenting, why don't you ask Mr Hockey? I am providing you with my answer. These are matters that are currently under consideration by the Ralph committee. The public consultations are under way. Final submissions I think should be sent to the Ralph committee by mid-April. By 30 June the Ralph committee will be making its recommendations to the government. I can only urge Senator Conroy to await the outcome of the investigations and the recommendations by the Ralph committee.3370Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Where does the Assistant Treasurer stand on the damaging difference of opinion on this issue which has emerged between the Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation? What is your opinion?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question should be directed through the chair, Senator.3370Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Conroy, let me be absolutely and totally frank with you. My opinion will be the government's position when that is finally determined. That is exactly what my position will be, Senator. I would urge you to contain your enthusiasm for this and await the outcome of the Ralph inquiry. 33713371Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Under the Howard government's economic management, over 400,000 jobs have been created and unemployment is now down to its lowest level since 1990 and the record highs of Labor, where over a million people were unemployed. Minister, can you inform the Senate of exactly what the coalition's tax reform package will offer workers in Australia?3371Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The important thing to note is that this government is not going to sit back simply because, as Senator Knowles said, we have the economy in good shape, we have been able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and interest rates are at the lowest level in 30 years. There is no doubt that there is certainly opportunity out there now which did not exist under Labor. But our point is that it is not enough. There is still a major area of reform that is necessary if we are to maximise the job opportunities in this country and really give future generations their greatest possible opportunity to obtain jobs and to otherwise get full economic benefit.The major area of reform that is still outstanding, the area that the Labor Party always avoided, is of course taxation reform. Taxation reform, to Labor, was to increase taxes. Even though they would go to the people and deny it, that is what they did nevertheless. We are suggesting major reforms to our taxation system for a number of reasons. The first one is so we can give $13 billion back to the taxpayer. Why? Because lower income tax means greater incentive. It means small business in particular can grow, can thrive and can employ. It should be obvious, I would have thought, that if we provide lower income tax rates and higher thresholds, Australians pay less income tax and there is greater incentive to work: there is a greater opportunity for small businesses to grow and to prosper. I would have thought that was obvious. The fact that the Labor Party cannot see it is really quite extraordinary.Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, there is a time for you to contribute and it is not now.BH4Senator HILL—He had 13 years to contribute, Madam President. Under the current taxation system, which Labor wants to keep, only 30 per cent of taxpayers pay a tax rate of 30 per cent or less. But under the new tax system, the Howard government's proposed tax system, 81 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. I repeat: 81 per cent. So from 30 per cent of all taxpayers under Labor to 81 per cent under us will pay a marginal income tax rate of 30 per cent or less. That is an extraordinary change and a real incentive to employ and to grow. More Australians paying lower tax rates means business will expand. It is worth noting, further, that low income earners will particularly benefit. The lowest marginal income tax rate will drop from 20 to 17 per cent. The amount of income that can be kept before becoming taxable increases from $5,400 to $6,000. So low income earners especially benefit under the Howard government's tax proposal. Furthermore, families get an extra benefit—an increase of over $2 billion a year in assistance to families and a four per cent increase in pensions and other income support payments to benefit lower income earners.As I said the other day, the GST will mean that nine state taxes can be abolished. That means there will be lower compliance costs for business—a further incentive for business to grow, to expand and to employ more Australians. As I also said the other day, there is a special benefit for exporters because exports will be GST free. That is good for the bush, good for regional Australia, good for commodities, and good for exporters in particular. All in all, what we are giving senators the opportunity to put through this chamber is a totally new taxation system that relies much less on income tax and provides new incentives. It supports exporters and enables the economy to grow, helping to build upon the 400,000 jobs that Senator Knowles was talking about.33713371Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communica tions, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Is the minister aware that the Queenstown hospital is currently without a phone service and has been since 9 a.m. yesterday? Is the minister aware that Telstra took nine hours to send a technician out to fix the phone system, which then went down again two hours later; that a second Telstra worker eventually found the fault at 1 a.m. this morning; and that the part required to fix the fault has been sourced from the Hobart store, which is due to be shut down on 30 June this year? Is the minister aware that the ambulance service for the west coast of Tasmania also runs out of the Queenstown hospital and that many lives may have been put at risk due to the fact that this hospital has been without a phone service for 29 hours? Minister, isn't this yet another example of ongoing cuts to telephone services in regional Australia as a result of the partial privatisation of Telstra?3372Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think even Senator Mackay believes this nonsense. Hardly anyone else out in the community does, unless they attend ALP branch meetings. The fact is, as you well know, as a result of competitive pressures Telstra has been lifting its game, both domestically and internationally, ever since your lot, when your current leader pro tem was the minister for communications back in 1991. That is when competition was introduced. Since that time Telstra has been expected to lift its game. As we know, there are always going to be problems with faults and installations. Nothing is perfect. I can tell you one thing: when it was wholly government owned, there were a plethora of complaints about the quality of service. That is one of the reasons why exposing it to competition is actually very beneficial. Enabling it to make sensible decisions without having government look over its shoulder is yet another very good reason.As we are talking about Telstra, I have to say that the gold medal for hypocrisy was handed out to Mr Beazley on the weekend because from the result of the New South Wales election he interpreted that the punters presumably did not like the idea of the privatisation of the electricity authority, ergo they did not like Telstra. What is the logical conclusion from that? Presumably, it must be that whoever wins the election, their policy in relation to privatisation is the correct one. That can be the only logical interpretation of Mr Beazley's statement. In other words, because the New South Wales government happened to win, then their position on privatisation, hypocritical and two-faced as it might have been, was correct. What does that tell you about the last federal election, Madam President? It is breathtaking to think that Mr Beazley has made such a fool of himself again on this issue. The opposition can run that union line as long as they like. They can get out there and pretend that somehow this has something to do with privatisation when it has not.Quality of service is a very important issue. We want a bill put through this Senate in the not too distant future that will give the government the power to give directions in relation to quality of service. Why are the opposition opposed to it? Why don't they want that to happen? Because they are blinkered, because they are not really interested. All they want to do is find a few whingers, find a few people with a hotline to the union, pass it on to Canberra and then get out there and have a bit of a grizzle.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You really hate Tasmanians, don't you?LD4Senator ALSTON—No, I am afraid not. I find it hard to stomach those who use specious arguments to justify an ideological position. Telstra has problems; we want them fixed. If Telstra is causing damage or putting at risk public health or other considerations, I am sure they do not want that any more than we do. Why would they? Why on earth would Telstra deliberately be out there trying to downgrade the quality of service? It does not do their reputation any good. It does not do the customers any good.So this has nothing to do with privatisation and you know it. You give me one isolated example, or maybe two with the ambulance service. What is that meant to prove, for heaven's sake? All it proves is that the opposition are desperately trying to justify the indefensible. They know, as Bob Hogg told them, that if they really want to lift their game, if they want to have a leader who is going to start afresh, they must start now. The opposition should put the past behind them, support the GST, support tax reform, support the privatisation of Telstra and find some new issues to run on. They cannot spend the next three years scrabbling around trying to find negative reasons. They will get their reward in due course but it will not be a very pleasant one.3373Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, that is very cold comfort to the people of Queenstown. I repeat: is the minister aware that Queenstown hospital has been without a phone for 29 hours? Is the minister aware that the hospital has been forced to make public radio announcements advising local residents not to telephone the hospital because its phone service is not working? Minister, is this totally unacceptable state of affairs, which is placing lives at risk on the west coast of Tasmania, a prelude to what regional and rural communities in Australia can expect, only on a much larger scale, with a further sell down of Telstra?3373Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Categorically no. It is a case for concern, as it would be for any public utility, any institution or corporation, delivering service.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What are you going to do about it?LD4Senator ALSTON—I told you what we want to do about it. We want to make sure that they provide the best possible service. We have an amendment that will allow the government to actually give orders if necessary, and you are opposed to it. Do not for a minute run this nonsense that somehow it has anything to do with privatisation, irrespective of the ownership structure—it is two-thirds government owned now. What is your point? You do not have a clue. If you want to intervene, if you want to do what Schachty had in mind, that is, basically run the country—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, would you refer to the senator correctly.LD4Senator ALSTON—He is not here today, Madam President. I thought he must have left the parliament. If he is still around—Senator Schacht. Madam President, I do not think anything more needs to be said. Senator Mackay stands convicted of gross hypocrisy. (Time expired)33733373Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. The Howard government has been applauded by many sections of business and the community generally for its vision in seeking to implement a much needed new taxation system for Australia. How will the new tax system benefit people living in regional and rural areas, particularly in the important area of local government?3373Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I welcome Senator Coonan's question on the impact of the GST and the tax reform package on people in rural and regional Australia, because it gives me the opportunity to emphasise what a great package this is for rural and regional Australians in particular. For years, those of us living in rural and regional Australia under the Labor Party regime paid enormous excise on fuel, and when you live furthest from the capital cities and the ports the cost of transport is a very big impost. It is also obvious that a lot of the wealth of Australia comes from rural and regional Australia, and transport costs again add to the cost of that. That is why this is such a good package, because costs of transport will fall. Diesel fuel will be 25c a litre cheaper on the trucks that carry goods to the ports and bring material back to us in the bush. For business generally there will be a $10 billion saving in costs. For Australian exporters—and this is very important in rural and regional Australia—costs of $4.5 billion will go as a result of this package. There will be $1.1 billion taken off agricultural costs, which equates to an average saving of $7,500 per farmer in Australia. That is really good news for Australians.Senator Coonan mentioned local government. Local government will benefit with about $70 million in embedded taxes coming off the costs of local government. Of course, local government are big players in rural and regional Australia. All general rates, water rates and sewerage rates will be GST free. With the cost of transport to local authorities, the Local Government Association of Queensland have estimated that Queensland councils alone will save some $18 million from the reduction in the price of fuel. Some councils are confused because the Labor Party has embarked upon a deliberate lie campaign on the effect of the GST.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What? Come on!YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I hear Senator Mackay interjecting. Obviously she has not been able to get the message through to her members in Tasmania, because Harry Quick, the MP for Franklin—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Mr Quick.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Mr Quick has put out a media release which says, `GST quiz, how well informed are you on where the GST applies? Will the GST apply to council rates?' and the answer from Mr Quick is: `Yes, it will.' That is a deliberate and outright lie by Mr Quick. I can only assume that is being supported—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, that should be withdrawn.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I withdraw. That is deliberate and mischievous misinformation and is contrary to the facts. Everybody knows that there will be no GST on rates, yet as late as March 1999 Mr Quick has been going around telling his constituents that there will be a GST on rates. That is blatant. It is the sort of thing that the Labor Party are embarked upon. No wonder their spokesman will not ask me any questions on local government and the GST, because they are going around putting out this sort of misinformation. There are deliberate outright lies in that.The ALP are not interested in the bush. In fact, when their spokesperson on regional affairs, Ms Kernot, was in the Democrats, she used to tell the Democrats not to go near the bush. She was not interested in them because she never got any votes there. Recently, when she was attacked for not being in her electorate, she came up with the excuse, `I have been in the electorate because I have never been out into regional Australia.' That is what the ALP's commitment to the bush is. (Time expired)33743374Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Does the minister agree that the whole point of redrafting the preamble was to further the cause of reconciliation by including in the Constitution an acknowledgment of the special relationship of the indigenous people to this country? Does the minister agree with—or does he reject—the unanimous view of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention that reference to the indigenous people's prior custodianship of the land was the minimum form of acknowledgment that would be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and hence be capable of making a positive contribution to reconciliation?3374Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Faulkner for the question. I do not agree with the assertion that he has just made. I would ask Senator Faulkner: what is in the current preamble? Can he give me chapter and verse what is in the current preamble? I suspect this is another game that the opposition are playing—the emasculated lion of the back bench devised a game which I read about in the `Kookaburra' column on Saturday. They are over there policyless, and all they have to do is mark little scores on how people on the government side answer questions. I see Senator Sherry won it. Congratulations, Senator Sherry, on winning that competition.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—It is by way of introduction, because I believe this sort of question shows that the opposition is going nowhere. Is this question going to the heart of what opposition is about? Is this question about the preamble to the Constitution going to destroy the government? The reality is that ATSIC is the major source of advice to the government on Aboriginal affairs. The Constitutional Convention was appointed—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Even elected.VW4Senator HERRON—And elected—but there were some appointees, as Senator Ray knows. They produced an opinion that has gone to the government. The government has taken a separate stand to that, as is its right to do, and has put forward a preamble which is now out for discussion. I see no difficulty with that at all. If Senator Faulkner has a better idea, let him come forward with a better wording of the preamble. I sincerely doubt that the opposition will have anything of any nature to suggest to the government that will be of any use to it whatsoever. (Time expired)3375Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I do commend Kim Beazley's draft—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Mr Beazley.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I commend his draft to the minister. My supplementary question is this: how is the Prime Minister's draft preamble being received by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose interests the minister is supposed to represent in the government? How are they receiving the Prime Minister's draft preamble and do they, and he, believe that it will make a positive contribution to reconciliation? I ask you, Madam President, to ask the minister to have a go at answering the question.3375Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I read the newspapers and I watch the television, and I have seen the reports about what ATSIC and some—not all—Aboriginal leaders have said. You will be interested to know, Senator Faulkner, that the Chairman of ATSIC has not written to me to give his opinion. I read the newspapers and I see television, and I suggest that Senator Faulkner probably gets his information from the media as well.33753375Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Are you aware of a media release by Minister Wilson Tuckey, dated 2 March 1999, indicating the government's intention to re-establish Wool International as a commercial entity? Will the current equity holders in Wool International be given an opportunity to vote for or against the new body, its business plan and the proposed composition of the new board of Wool International? Is the minister aware that while the proposal for Wool International has been welcomed by wool brokers, it has been criticised by the Wool Council, wool grower organisations and individual wool growers? Is the government's proposal going to further divide the wool industry?3375Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Woodley for the question. There certainly has been some media coverage arising from comments by Mr Don McGauchie, chair of the interim advisory board. I have not seen a press release from the minister, Mr Tuckey, but certainly the future structure of Wool International is very much on the table. It is clear that the interim advisory board is developing a draft business plan for a privatised Wool International, and Mr McGauchie has said that a number of business plan options are being considered, including a number of fresh proposals developed by people outside the wool industry.Quite clearly, at the end of the day the object of the exercise, as far as both the government and the interim advisory board are concerned, is to ensure that we have a system that provides as much security and ongoing prosperity as possible in difficult economic circumstances. It is not the intention to—as I think you said—`further divide'. It is not the government's intention, in any shape or form, to divide the community. There may be different views properly held by a number of people in the debate, but that is almost inevitable in fairly contentious issues.I reiterate that the future direction for the privatised Wool International will be decided by the new board of the privatised Wool International and its shareholders, who are the existing entitlement holders, not the current Wool International board or the government. The government's role is to ensure a smooth transition from statutory authority to the new privatised corporation and to ensure that the interests of existing entitlement holders are properly catered for. Wool International is being privatised, and obviously the board and management are required to facilitate that process. However, the Wool International board is not, and will not be, involved in the development of the future business plan. This will be a matter for the new board of the privatised entity.3376Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister—I think—for his answer. In terms of dividing the wool industry, are you aware of a memo from the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers to its members, dated 18 March 1999, which details a meeting between brokers' representatives and Don McGauchie from the interim advisory board of Wool International? Did the memo state, `There will be no direct election of board members by shareholder/growers, so grower politics should not be a problem'? Do you know what was meant by that? I guess not. But is this a betrayal of the government's commitment to wool growers and equity holders given prior to the 1998 election that they would be given a say in decisions regarding the wool stockpile?3376Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not have direct knowledge of the matter that Senator Woodley has just raised, but it sounds as though it is a memo from one party to a discussion which may be at odds with the view of the other party to that discussion, and each of them may indeed be at odds with what the government might have thought was occurring. We should not, therefore, jump to any conclusions and assume that what they happened to put in their memo, even if acting in good faith—and we can assume that, I suppose—faithfully represented any agreement that might have been reached between them. At the end of the day, the decision will be made by those in authority, not by parties and particularly not by those who might have an interest in prematurely releasing details of what one would have assumed were internal discussions. That is really just informal lobbying and positioning. At the end of the day, the decision will be taken with the best interests of wool growers and the wider community at heart.33763376Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister confirm that he saw nothing wrong with the comments of Mr Barry Haase, Liberal member for Kalgoorlie, to Tiwi Island community leaders, alleging that their ancestors were cannibals and that their response to someone entering their lands without permission involved the use of `big pots'? Can he further confirm that he passed this gratuitously offensive and untrue comment off as merely a joke—an aside to the chairman of the community? In his discussion with Mr Haase, did the minister responsible for indigenous affairs ask about the reaction of the Tiwi Islanders? Did they join in with the joke?3376Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, I ask you! Is the opposition serious about this question? Is this a matter of great policy debate that is going to be so earth shattering? Even the emasculated lion over there would not ask this sort of question. Have we reached a state of affairs in this country that, when somebody cracks a joke around the place, it then becomes a matter of something—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—You're the joke.VW4Senator HERRON—They are all unanimous on that other side that nobody can crack a joke. Is it no longer possible for anybody to crack a joke and say something of that nature? I spoke to Mr Haase about it. He said that as an aside he cracked a joke about something, and then the next minute it became a national issue. I really ask whether the media have better things to do with their time than to bring this issue up.Let us talk about Labor Party policy, Madam President. All they have to do over on that side is to construct little word games. They are probably doing crosswords on that side, when they come up with questions like this. Mr Haase makes a little aside—a little joke—that suddenly becomes an issue in the Senate of this nation. I would think the opposition would have better things to do with their time than to try to promote this issue and create it as something that warrants a question in the Senate. The answer to your question, Senator Reynolds, is that he passed a joke. Marius Puruntatameri was present. I have not spoken to him about it and he has not spoken to me about it. I suggest you ask him.3377Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, it is obvious from your answer why the United Nations committee responsible for the elimination of racism has condemned this government. If you regard that comment as a joke, it is obvious why you have been removed from reconciliation responsibility. Can you indicate whether you will ask your Liberal Party colleague to withdraw this remark and at least to apologise to Tiwi community leaders?3377Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have spoken to Mr Haase. He regarded it as a bit of a joke. If Senator Reynolds does not regard it as such, then she has a real problem.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You're a disgrace as Aboriginal affairs minister!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I ask you to withdraw that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I just described the Aboriginal affairs minister as a disgrace. If you are saying it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is a matter I will take up with you at a later stage.33773377MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question without notice is to Senator Newman.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!YH4Senator MacGIBBON—On Friday night the Prime Minister made an epoch making statement on reforms to the not-for profit sector—the charities of Australia—which involved harnessing business and is of fundamental importance to Australia.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator MacGibbon, would you wait please. I call Senator MacGibbon.YH4Senator MacGIBBON—On Friday night the Prime Minister made an epoch-making statement on the reforms to the not-for-profit sector, which involve considerable taxation incentives both to private individuals and to business. I congratulate Senator Newman for her longstanding interest in the field of charities and for the great amount of very intricate and complex planning that went into these proposals.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is the question, Senator?YH4Senator MacGIBBON—The Prime Minister's statement takes the one great step to expand the resources available to the welfare sector to help those less fortunate Australians that—(Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The time for asking the question has terminated.YH4MacGIBBONSenator MacGibbon—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Under standing orders, I am entitled to four minutes to pose a question. Due to the disorder here, I got considerably less than 10 per cent of my time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The time for asking a question is one minute. It was twice that the Senate was called to order when the clock should have been stopped. I am told it was stopped during that period, in which case the time for asking the question has terminated.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that you did call opposition members to order so that people could listen to the answer. I am sure Senator MacGibbon was not sure that the clocks were stopped, but the bottom line is that the members of the opposition who were interjecting did not respond to your call to order—which is often the case in this place. You called members of the opposition to order, and they did not respond to your call. I am only sitting a few yards from Senator MacGibbon, and I could not hear the question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, with respect, Madam President: Senator MacGibbon's non-question was all pompous preamble. There was no question at all. He did not ask a question. I think we should move on to the next questioner.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the non-point of order raised by Senator Faulkner, it is not clear to what extent the clock was stopped, and I think it is fair to say also that Senator MacGibbon did wait to ensure that there was sufficient silence in the chamber to enable him to properly ask the question. In those circumstances, it may well be that the time the clock was stopped was not equivalent to the amount of time that he actually hesitated before order was restored. I therefore invite you to extend to him as a small courtesy probably no more than 15 or 20 seconds to complete the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In the circumstances, the only thing I can suggest is that Senator MacGibbon seek leave to ask the question that he did not ask. There certainly have been a lot of interjections. I have no reason to think that the clock has not been stopped in accordance with my directions, and I am certain the clerks would be watching that.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, the other point is that, if ministers have no alternative but to recom mence the question, as Senator MacGibbon did—he had to start again because of the constant interruptions on the other side of the chamber—he should in such circumstances be permitted the opportunity to complete asking his question. That seems only reasonable in all the circumstances, and that is not adequately covered by this idea of stopping the clock during points of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is taken into account with the clock. I think that Senator MacGibbon could ask leave to ask the question.3378MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—Madam President, I seek to leave to ask a question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the basis that the Prime Minister's statement was epoch making, we had better give him leave.YH4Senator MacGIBBON—My question is: will the minister explain to the Senate the key initiatives and the benefits in the Prime Minister's statement? I really should not have to be on my knees before someone like Senator Faulkner to ask a question in this chamber.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. With respect, I think Senator MacGibbon has suffered enough embarrassment. You should have ruled him out of order with his final sentence. I am sure you would agree with me, Madam President—he has been embarrassed enough.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is sledging going on on both sides of the chamber. The behaviour is disorderly, and that was certainly disorderly as well. That is not in dispute.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator MacGibbon has asked for an expression of government policy. Under the rules of question time, standing order 73, it says:questions shall not ask:(i) for a statement of the government's policy;That is exactly what Senator MacGibbon has asked for, and the question is out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would need to recheck the question to know that but, within the standing orders, I ask Senator Newman to answer the question.3378Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would be delighted to answer the question. Obviously it is clear that Senator MacGibbon has the same enthusiasm for this initiative as I do, as does the Prime Minister. On Friday night the Prime Minister did make a major announcement in a major speech to 800 people in Melbourne representing the community sector and the corporate sector—all of whom, I must say, were delighted with the initiative. Senator MacGibbon has made representations himself to the government on this initiative and the need for it. The government last year took advice from David Gonsky's working party on taxation reform in this area and it was as a result of that that the Prime Minister made the announcements he did on Friday night. So, in other words, something like $51 million of tax incentives in the coming year will encourage gifts to charities by the private sector, whether by individuals or companies. We expect that will mean something like $75 million going to Australian charities. No wonder it is regarded as being a far-sighted measure. The government is in no way suggesting that it will walk away from its responsibilities to look after those in need.This was an opportunity to enhance our society, to make it an even more caring one. It is interesting that those who were presented with the Prime Minister's awards on Friday night not only gave of their financial resources; some of them more particularly gave of their expertise and personal time. The winners, Lend Lease, in partnership with the Sydney City Mission, were involved, with something like 2,000 of their staff giving of their time to projects nominated by the City Mission—giving of their time, their expertise and their money, where that was needed. But it is very important that corporate Australia is being recognised by the government for what they have been doing and, even more, for what they can do in the future. So the tax initiatives will help individuals; they will also help companies whereby gifting of property, either after death in testamentary gifts or during one's lifetime, will be made easier—red tape will be reduced and the opportunity to be more generous will be there.The Prime Minister is setting up a community business partnership which will be run by a board, of which he will be the chairman. It will make recommendations on the Prime Minister's awards for excellence in business and community partnerships. I will be his alternate chair, and a small group of senior people in welfare and corporate Australia will make up the board. The board is designed not only to give the government advice but also to assist in the brokerage of significant partnerships between corporate Australia and the community sector.This is a far-sighted initiative which will go to a more caring Australia, which will encourage a more generous Australia and which will make for better outcomes for those in need. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the leadership role that the Prime Minister has taken in this. He has a great personal commitment to it, and anybody who was at the dinner on Friday night would well understand that this is something very dear to the Prime Minister's heart. It is very dear to my heart as the minister responsible for the program. I am delighted to think that this Australian government is in partnership with business and with the community sector in getting better outcomes for Australians. (Time expired)33793379Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Is it not true that Advantra, the company which has just won the group 5 IT outsourcing contract, is just another multinational, with an ownership structure almost identical to that of another major beneficiary of the government's IT outsourcing program? Haven't Australian IT companies again been cut out of the bidding process by the structure of the tender? Who can possibly believe Mr Fahey's propaganda about the wonderful opportunities the government is creating for local IT companies? John Riedl, the CEO of a 300-person indigenous IT company, said in the Australian Financial Review on 27 March:. . . indigenous IT companies are effectively shut out of the outsourcing process in favour of the multinationals . . .outsourcing leads to an 80 per cent decline in the revenue to indigenous IT companies . . .10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lundy, the time for your question has expired.7G6Senator LUNDY—the ten indigenous networking—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lundy, I called you to order earlier, and you should have sat down immediately.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Was there a question in all that? There was no question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There was a question within the statement made by Senator Lundy. Senators on my right will cease interjecting.3379Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government does, of course, have a policy of accommodating small to medium enterprises in its outsourcing policy. Senator Lundy was reported in the weekend press as saying that there should be a moratorium on this outsourcing, which would rob entirely small to medium enterprises of any chance of getting any IT outsourcing work. Let us look at the government's record in relation to outsourcing and small to medium enterprises. In our first contract, cluster 3, we created 275 full-time jobs and delivered 24 per cent of contract value to small to medium enterprises. This had an Australian value added content of 80 per cent and delivered strategic investment worth $40 million. Senator Lundy implied in that statement that the government had put out propaganda on its stance in relation to small to medium enterprises and its outsourcing policy. I have just cited an example where 24 per cent of the contract value went to small to medium enterprises.What about the outsourcing IT needs of the Australian Taxation Office? There we saved taxpayers $100 million and delivered over $100 million in work to small to medium enterprises. That will see $280 million worth of products sourced in Australia and 138 new jobs created—86 of them in regional Australia. But there is more. Our third project, known as cluster 5, or group 5, will boost exports by $30 million and create 100 jobs in southern Queensland. It will boost local industry by $70 million. That is what the government's outsourcing is doing in relation to small to medium enterprises, and it is good news for them.I will not comment on the detail of one particular tendering process because it would be inappropriate for me to do so. That is a matter which is commercial-in-confidence. I would say that, if Senator Lundy and the opposition had their way, there would be no IT outsourcing and there would be nothing not just for small to medium enterprises but for anyone. You would not have those benefits I have just mentioned, which have been delivered by the government to small business and local industry, or new jobs for Australians.3380Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is Mr Fahey right in claiming that the IT outsourcing program is the greatest opportunity ever for local IT companies or is Mr Riedl correct in claiming it is `an extraordinary indictment of government policy and purchasing'?3380Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister for Finance and Administration is absolutely correct in this matter. The Labour government in England has recognised that the road this government is going down is the right one. You just have to look at its public-private partnerships. Earlier this year the Blair government boasted that it had outsourced the IT needs of the National Savings Agency, a deal worth a billion pounds. So even the Labour counterparts of the opposition in the United Kingdom recognise that what we are doing over here is the right thing. Minister Fahey is absolutely right in what he says in terms of our outsourcing policy presenting opportunities for jobs.Distinguished Visitors33803380The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a congressional delegation from the United States of America, led by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Hon. Bill Archer. On behalf of honourable senators I have pleasure in welcoming you to the chamber, and I trust that your visit here will be both informative and enjoyable.Questions Without Notice338033803380Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, my question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is it the case that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority recently sent a letter to all health ministers suggesting that there were an estimated 500 products available in Australia that contained GMO ingredients? Is it also the case that this letter stated that ANZFA had received only seven applications for approval under standard A18 as `substantially equivalent' as of 17 March? Considering the food industry's concern that there is insufficient time to conduct the necessary scientific assessment of the remaining 490-odd GMO food products on Australian shelves by 13 May, will the government act to ensure that these unapproved products are removed from sale after 13 May?3380Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for her question. It is the first substantial question we have had from the opposition the whole afternoon. There is a fair amount of meat in the question, but at least it gives us food for thought. Senator Stott Despoja was referring to the fact that food commodities using gene technology have been in the marketplace overseas since 1992 and currently there are over 50 such commodities approved for food use worldwide. On 30 July 1998 health ministers, in their capacity as the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, approved standard A18 to regulate the sale of foods produced using gene technology. This standard will come into effect nine months after the date of gazettal, on 13 May 1999. Senator Stott Despoja's question really should be asked after 13 May 1999 because the standard has not come into effect yet. Premising a question on the results after the standard comes into effect is not appropriate.Once the standard takes effect it will be illegal to send any food produced using gene technology unless it has been assessed as being safe by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority and approved by health ministers. The enforcement of the standard is the responsibility of state and territory health authorities. The pre-market approval requirement of the standard has been widely publicised in the media and in ANZFA publications, and the implications of the standard have been known by industry bodies and food companies in both Australia and New Zealand since the notification of a draft standard was announced in February 1997.ANZFA has received six applications relating to foods derived from genetically modified crops, and public notification of these six applications was published on 28 October last year. ANZFA has completed the safety assessment of the first two of these six applications and has found that two commodities—one being herbicide tolerant soya bean and the other insect resistant cottonseed—meet safety requirements for food. These two are the principal genetically modified food commodities that are currently in the marketplace in Australia and have been in use by manufacturers for several years. A recommendation to the Food Standards Council on the regulation of these commodities is expected in April. The council is then to decide whether to approve these foods for continued use in the food supply.Being aware that many imported foods may not be covered by these six applications, ANZFA as a matter of urgency has notified food industry bodies, especially the owners of the original genetically modified commodity, in Australia, New Zealand and overseas of the need to submit applications for assessment. The minister is most concerned that, due to inaction on the part of the owners of these genetically modified commodities, many food importers and manufacturers in Australia and New Zealand may be damaged once the standard is enforced as of 13 May. If on 13 May, when the standard comes into force, ANZFA has before it applications that have yet to be fully assessed, health ministers will need to determine whether transitional arrangements are justified so as not to disrupt the marketplace.3381Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his answer, but I ask the minister to clarify what he means by `transitional arrangements'. Can he guarantee for the Senate that we will see no delay in the date of effect of the introduction of A18 so that that will not be changed from 13 May; it will actually go ahead as planned? Am I to understand from the minister's answer that he will ensure that any products that are not assessed by the commencement of standard A18 will be removed from the shelves, so any unapproved products will actually be removed from shelves? Thirdly, will the minister clarify whether he is stating that products that have been approved overseas will be available for sale in Australia, or can he guarantee that they will have to be approved by independent Australian assessment before they are approved for sale in Australia?3381Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I can guarantee that ministers would not accept any transitional arrangement for foods which were known to pose a risk to public health and safety. That will be the bottom line, and I will certainly guarantee that. But the evaluation of the safety of genetically modified foods is the responsibility of the food authority, and it undertakes evaluations in accordance with internationally accepted best practice risk assessment principles. The safety assessment of foods produced using gene technology addresses both intentional and unintentional effects which may arise from the modification.33823382Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Has the minister's attention been drawn to claims by the Victorian Premier, Mr Kennett, that Mark Textor, the Liberal pollster in the disastrous Liberal election campaign in New South Wales, had allowed himself to become a player in the marketplace rather than a servant of the organisation and the parliamentary wing? In particular, has the minister's attention been drawn to Mr Kennett's statement that `because they became players, they set in place activities and outcomes which have proved to be devastating'? Will the Prime Minister now rule out continuing to reward Mr Textor with government work if, as according to Mr Kennett, his activities are devastating to his clients?3382Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I actually do not think Mr Textor gets a lot of government work, from when I last looked at the schedule of these things. But certainly it is my view that he is very competent at his job. The fact that he has given good advice to the Liberal Party in the past which has been acted upon to the Liberal Party's advantage I know is a matter of some angst to Senator Faulkner, but that is life. I hope that he will continue to give us good advice in the future and that we might be successful again at the next election.3382Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Natural Heritage Trust, I would have thought that the minister may know a little different. Given that the former New South Wales Liberal leader, Mr Peter Collins, has said, `This is the most incompetent election campaign that the Liberal Party has run in living memory,' and given the central role of Mr Textor in the change of Liberal leaders late last year, I ask whether Mr Kennett is correct when he says:For Nogarotto and the polling experts to argue that the change of personality just prior to an election was in the best interests of the party was quite clearly an indication of their lack of experience themselves and that it was driven by other factors. While the Labor Party does have a strong interest obviously in the coalition continuing to use this incompetent and amoral loser, when will the Prime Minister act to remove this Liberal Party player, this professional Liberal Party apparatchik, from federal government contracts?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Much of that was not within the competency of a ministerial portfolio. To the extent that some of the matters were, I call Senator Hill.3382Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The important factor in Mr Carr's victory at the weekend was the excellent economic conditions presented to him by the Howard government. When you are operating under record low interest rates, low inflation and the lowest unemployment figures since the recession that Mr Keating gave us, not surprisingly the incumbent state government had a huge advantage. The real lesson for the Federal Labor Party is that it ought to start on the path of redrawing policy.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. While it may be interesting for Senator Hill to claim credit for Mr Carr's victory, my question related to whether the Prime Minister would remove Mr Textor from his federal government contracts. That is the substance of the question, and I ask you to direct the Leader of the Government in the Senate to answer the substantive question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct the minister as to how he answers. I would merely draw his attention to the content of that part which is within his responsibility.BH4Senator HILL—My point is that if the Labor Party here stopped worrying about Mr Textor and started writing some decent policies they may just have a chance at the next election. But all we have got so far is a pathway from Mr Beazley—a pathway to nowhere. Perhaps they could start by taking the advice of Mr Hogg, their former national secretary, and support the GST and at least give the people of Australia a chance.33823382Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, the coalition's tax reform package seeks to streamline and simplify Australia's ramshack le taxation system. Can you inform the Senate of the positive effects the taxation reform package will have on Australian industry and explain the many benefits the package will deliver?3383Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for the question, Senator Crane. Madam President, I think it is an important and perceptive question from Senator Crane. A recent quote has been brought to my attention. This is another famous quote that Senator Peter Cook has apparently made, but this time it is a very positive quote and I would like to share that with the Senate. Apparently, the tax package has received at least some support from Senator Peter Cook, who in relation to the mining industry said at the Senate select committee last week:There is a quantifiable—subject to advice of course—advantage to your industry, I suspect, from the new tax package.I have not actually often said this but Senator Peter Cook, as I understand the quote, was absolutely dead right for a change, and I am pleased to be able to stand up in the Senate chamber and make that comment.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Read the whole quote.WW4Senator KEMP—Here he goes! I won my bet. Thanks, Peter.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should be addressing the chair and not referring to the senator in that fashion.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Peter Cook is quite right—the tax package will be of major benefit to the mining industry and of course to industry overall, and that of course is the reason why the Labor Party should pass this package. In fact costs to the coal, oil and gas industry fall by some $1.26 billion under the government's tax reform proposals. There are very substantial falls of course to the iron and steel industry, and the cost to petroleum and coal products will also fall very substantially indeed. This represents very major gains not only to the mining industry in particular but to the people employed in that industry and of course in the wider sense to rural and regional Australia.As a reminder, exports will be GST free. Under the current system of course people are being penalised for selling Australian goods overseas. We are going to take away some $4.5 billion annually in costs facing exporters, a clear way, I would have thought, to create jobs and stimulate growth. And what does the Labor Party do about all this? Absolutely nothing. But I wanted to have a chance, in a positive sense, to stand up and pay a compliment to Peter Cook because he has not always been right before. I also want to bring to the attention of the Senate another comment by a Labor member of parliament, Neil O'Keefe, a former—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Mr O'Keefe, was it?WW4Senator KEMP—Mr Neil O'Keefe, Madam President, a former shadow minister, said in an article in the Melbourne Age on Friday that he believes that the two major political parties should support each other's `mandate items'—as he called them—through the Senate.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Which you've never done.WW4Senator KEMP—I know that you are annoyed about this, Senator Ray, but Mr O'Keefe was quoted as saying that `the big policy items over which the election is fought would be guaranteed smooth passage through' the Senate. Mr O'Keefe is right. As Senator Cook was right earlier on on this question, Mr O'Keefe is right here. Mr O'Keefe's idea is that what you vote for is what you get. (Time expired)3383Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank Senator Kemp for highlighting the positive comments of both Senator Cook and Mr O'Keefe. Minister, do you believe now that in fact the Labor Party might be, at long last, seeing the light and going to address some of the key issues and the positive facts that have come out of the Senate inquiries?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, it is not appropriate to ask questions about the Labor Party in that fashion.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous3384338415:04:003384Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—On the last day that we had question time, Senator Woodley asked me about some fumes in the cabins of BAe 146s and mentioned a particular incident. I have discussed the matter with Mr Anderson, the minister. I am advised that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has not received any notification with respect to the alleged incident which Senator Woodley said occurred on a BAe 146 flight from Perth to Kununurra. Mr Anderson has asked BASI to contact Senator Woodley's office to obtain details of the alleged incident, and I understand that has been done.I can assure Senator Woodley and all senators, as I did on Thursday, that both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation will take swift action to address problems that might arise. At this stage both CASA and BASI are continuing investigations into this issue, and CASA is working proactively with the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and our airlines to understand better these issues. I have absolute confidence in both CASA and BASI, as does the government.338415:05:003384Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) today, relating to the new preamble proposed for the Australian Constitution.I am sorry that the minister is about to leave the chamber. Minister, I cannot believe that, as the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, you were unable in cabinet to ensure that what was recommended by the Constitutional Convention, in regard to a recognition of custodianship, would be included in the Prime Minister's preamble. I note that you indicated in your answer to Senator Faulkner that the preamble had been `put out for discussion'. That may be technically so but the Prime Minister has made it clear that this is a take it or leave it preamble—`accept my preamble or forget it,' says the Prime Minister, quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 March, with the Prime Minister threatening to dump his preamble if the Senate prevented it being put to the people in November with the republic question. The report said:Mr Howard again refused to countenance the preamble acknowledging the Aborigines' relationship to the land, guaranteeing it being blocked by the Senate in the face of unanimous opposition from Aborigines and Mr Howard's handpicked Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.But what about support for the preamble, not from the community—we know the talkback radio programs and the letters to the editor indicate that there is major embarrassment in regard to this preamble—but from some of the Prime Minister's colleagues? The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, said, `Yeah, I've read it. Any other questions?' Jeff Kennett is not somebody who usually goes quiet on subjects. He could not find any words to say about it. Similarly, Peter Costello said, `There it is. It's out there. People can have a look at it. People will have a free vote.' He is scarcely enthusiastic. Nor was the Attorney-General.What about the National Party? At the Queensland conference at the weekend, angry National Party members slammed a `silly preamble'. The Queensland National Party conference was told yesterday that Prime Minister John Howard had hijacked coalition policy to produce his `silly preamble'. The National Central Council conference in Nambour has rejected the preamble, after an emotive debate signalling a renewed assault against the republic. Some conference delegates urged their party to reassert an uncompromising stand against constitutional change. A delegate of the Young Nationals accused Mr Howard of hijacking policy development. He said that, if we allow the Prime Minister to continue to dictate policy to us, we are abrogating our responsibility.Quite clearly, this preamble is not—as it should be—a dialogue between the govern ment and the people of Australia. This is a dialogue between the Prime Minister and John Howard. He does not want to have any views other than his own recognised.BH4HILLSenator Hill—That is why it is out for public discussion.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—Why does he say, `Take it or leave it,' Senator? Mr Howard has dismissed criticism by the former ATSIC chairwoman, Dr O'Donohue, who has called his preamble `divisive'. Mr Howard said Aborigines would have to accept his proposal, Senator, or they will get no recognition at all in the Constitution.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—That's right.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I note that Senator Abetz is saying, `That's right'. This is a take it or leave it preamble. The complaints are pouring in. The federal sex discrimination office has been inundated with complaints from women about the Prime Minister's draft preamble, because of the use of the word `mateship'.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Ha, ha! See, you are either a hindrance—XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—That is another joke! This government seems to have the strangest notions about what jokes are. First of all, we have the Aboriginal affairs minister thinking that a grossly insulting comment to Tiwi elders is a joke. Now we have Senator Abetz on the public record laughing and thinking that it is not acceptable for women to object to the term `mateship'. (Time expired)15:11:003385Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—We have just heard an interesting prattle on the preamble, raising this matter and that. But what we have not heard is what we now have in the preamble, in relation to reconciliation and indigenous people. We do not have a single word about reconciliation—not a mention of our indigenous people, not a mention of any of the patterns of migration that have taken place in this country over more than 200 years. We actually do not have a mention of indigenous people.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Your party did not want to take note of Aboriginal people at all.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—What the government has done is release a draft preamble, Senator Schacht. It is very important that people see it in that light. But before we address the draft preamble, I would like to read into the Hansard some of the words that are actually in the existing preamble. When it was written in 1900, the intention was to give some information on the reason for the enactment of the legislation. Our intention in updating it is to more appropriately reflect why we want to continue to join together in what is actually a contract between the states and territories and its citizens. These are the sorts of words that are in the current preamble, which I think very effectively illustrate why the Prime Minister—and indeed the entire government—want to update this particular part of our Constitution. It includes such words as, in the third paragraph:Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows . . . I do not think that there is a person in this parliament or indeed in this country who would believe that those sorts of words—`the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons'—effectively or appropriately anymore reflect the sorts of priorities that we have in this country or are an accurate reflection of the way that we are.In my view, the government's draft preamble is not clumsy or awkward. It is more easily understood than what we have now. To me, it reflects more accurately our way of life and what has influenced us as we have matured as a nation. It expresses and reflects on our past, our future and on the important individual aspirations and freedoms that we hold for the future, in a way which enables each of us to interpret them as we wish.Men and women who are around in times of trouble or sadness or celebration are people I call `mates'. They are my mates. I do not ring people up and say `mate', as some members of the Labor Party might do, and nor have I had any phone calls from people who might suggest that to me. But there is no doubt in my mind that the term `mateship' means, to me, a non-gender form of endearment.When my father died, my mother told me that she had lost her best mate. I understood absolutely and very clearly what she meant. She did not mean it in any blokey way, nor did she expect that I would take it that way. I understood entirely what she meant. Some people want Australia to be remodelled as a republic to freshen our image overseas, to give us freedom and independence, but talking down this suggested preamble means that in the middle of next century we could still be arguing about it—especially if we hear what Gareth Evans says: 30 years to codify the reserve powers of the Governor-General. At this rate, Gareth's select committee will still be considering this in 30 or 40 years time and there will still be no mention in our preamble of our indigenous families, no mention of those people who have come to this country over the last 200 years, no mention of anything that more appropriately reflects the kind of country we now are. We will simply have, if Gareth has his way, `Lords Temporal and Spiritual' and other inappropriate forms of words. (Time expired)15:16:003386Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—After the contribution from Senator Ferris, one realises how bad this preamble that the Prime Minister inflicted on the Australian people last week really is. If the best defence the Prime Minister can get is for Senator Ferris to make remarks such as, `It is better than what was written 100 years ago' as if that is the only benchmark, that is extraordinary. To say that the definition is based on her mother's description of her relationship with her father—5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Don't be offensive, Senator.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am just stating what you said. We have had an extraordinary performance from the Prime Minister. As I said before lunch in the debate about the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , the Prime Minister discovered that, come the referendum to decide whether Australians should have one of their own as president, he would be one of the few people out there saying no and he would look an utter dill in being so. He had to think of something he could positively put up and say, `I am in favour of it. Yes.' So he came up with the preamble—not the preamble that the Constitutional Convention proposed 14 months ago after at least two weeks of discussion among a cross-section of all political thought ranging across the community. No, we do not have that preamble; John Howard says, `I'm not a bad hand with a pen. I'll have a go at it.' He spoke to two people: Les Murray and Professor Blainey are the only two he consulted. He did not consult Robert Hill. He did not consult Senator Ferris or Senator Abetz—not one member of the parliamentary Liberal Party was consulted. They all had to have amnesia. Then he put it to them at the party meeting, saying `This is the wonderful document' and daring anyone to say no. They all rolled over and said, `Yes, it's fine.' Then they started leaking to the press this week what a dumdum the Prime Minister is and what a stupid preamble it is.In particular there is the issue of his prejudicial view in not recognising the prior custodianship of Aboriginal people on this continent. We have this phrase `since time immemorial'. What does that mean? From when does `immemorial' begin?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Since recorded history.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Aboriginal people do have recorded history, you dope.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—They do not have recorded history.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I beg your pardon? He says they do not have recorded history. All of the rock paintings going back tens of thousands of years are not recorded history? Of course, Senator Abetz's view of recorded history is what has been written in a law book printed in the last 30 years. That is his idea of recorded history. This is another example of the Liberal Party being so out of tune. A majority of Australian people are quite willing to say it is quite reasonable to have a preamble that states the fact that the Aboriginal people were here before white settlement; that they had custodianship of this land and that should be recognised.Because of his prejudicial and 1950s view of how the world should be and how in particular Australia should be, the Prime Minister has written a preamble that does nothing else but reflect his view that Australia in the next century should be based on when he thought Australia was at its best—the 1950s. It is a disgrace that he proposes this to the people. No wonder he is being derided all around Australia—laughed at by half of the Liberal Party. Even one of the most conservative figures, Bruce Ruxton, has dismissed it as pure corn. Others well noted for their conservative views have laughed it off the stage. The best thing this Prime Minister could do, as I said earlier, is take the view of Sir Robert Menzies when he tried to propose the name `royal' for our decimal currency amid great derision: he withdrew it. The Prime Minister should withdraw his preamble and allow a proper consultation within the Australian community about what would be a decent preamble for all of Australia. (Time expired)15:21:003387Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—What we have seen is a hysterical and affected opposition by Senator Reynolds and the Labor Party to a preamble. What Senator Schacht and those on the other side cannot overcome is the fact that they had 13 years in government to deal with this very sensitive issue. Did they ever once come up with a proposal for the Australian people? No, there was absolutely none, because they were too scared or incapable of dealing with such an important decision, with such an important provision for our Constitution. Senator Ferris has just told the Australian people what the preamble actually says at the moment. After having dealt with Labor's economic mess in our first term of government, we are now turning ourselves to some of the other social issues which are of importance to this nation. As a result, early on in this our second term, we are dealing with the issue of the preamble.Let us have a look at the draft for a national declaration of reconciliation forwarded by the chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Evelyn Scott, on 17 March 1999. Paragraph 2 states:We celebrate the fact that the Aboriginal culture is the oldest living continuous culture on the planet. That culture is still alive. It is sacred, spiritual and practical, a unique way of living in harmony with the land. Through the land and its first peoples, newcomers to this country may taste that spirituality and rejoice in its grandeur.In the draft preamble to the Constitution, the Prime Minister suggests:Since time immemorial—or oldest living continuous culture, according to the draft for a national declaration of reconciliation, which is very similar wording—our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.It is virtually identical to what Evelyn Scott and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation have put forward. Yet there is this affected hysteria from those on the other side who are trying to suggest that the preamble does not do the right thing by our fellow Australians who are our indigenous brothers and sisters. The reality is that that is exactly what the draft preamble is doing.I suggest to honourable senators opposite that they take a broad view of the Australian population and ask themselves if they want to frame a preamble in the politically correct manner that Kim Beazley suggests, falling over himself to put wheelbarrow load after wheelbarrow load of political correctness before the Australian people. You can bet your bottom dollar that especially in the blue ribbon Labor seats that preamble would be rejected. The Prime Minister is seeking to chart a course not for political correctness but for what the Australian people, as a whole, will reasonably adopt, accept and incorporate into their Constitution to make it a more living document, to make it more representative of the aspirations of the Australian people, as our country exists today.Indeed, the preamble goes on to talk about the enrichment to this nation provided by migrants. There are a lot of other excellent comments in this preamble—indeed, statements—which enrich our constitutional structure. It will be a great document for all Australians to read and consider when they think about what being Australian means. I suggest to my friends opposite that they stop and think for a while. The next election is not going to be won or lost over the preamble issue, so take a statesmanlike approach to this sensitive issue and, for a change, don't be negative, look at it in a positive light and make a positive contribution to your country, and remember that for 13 years you had the opportunity and failed to deliver one word of preamble. We have given to the Australian people for their consideration a coherent, consistent and acceptable preamble, which is a lot more than Labor ever did and ever will do.15:26:003388Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Herron to Senator Faulkner on the preamble on behalf of the many constituents who have phoned my home and my office in the last few weeks. When I went home at the weekend, I had a number of calls on my answering machine and quite a few of them related to this. Interestingly, they were all from women, and I will come back to that in a moment.People are disappointed that there is a lack of vision and dignity shown in the words of the draft preamble. I do not understand why it was that Mr Howard and a couple of his advisers did this preamble. I am not sure why they did not seek to use a Senate committee, which has the capacity to look at all of the distinct groups that make up this great nation of ours. Why were they, as a Senate committee, excluded from the process? Why has this document turned into a document belonging purely to the Howard government? It is a document that does not really belong to the present generation. My colleague Senator Schacht made reference to the preamble sounding like a document from the 1950s, and I would have to agree with him. It does not sound to me like a document for the future.The draft preamble begins with a statement about hope in God. Surely the statement `faith in God' would have been more appropriate. Most people from various religious beliefs have faith in their God. That was one of the issues that was raised in one of the phone calls that I have had. It came from a Baha'i woman living on the north-west coast. She made the point that there are many people of various faiths in this country and that she felt that the word `faith' would have been more appropriate than `hope'.Most of the vocal criticism that I have had is from women who object to the word `mateship'. They say that it is too blokey in nature. If you think about it, there probably were not any women chosen to help advise on this preamble. Therefore, the culture of the thinking of the people who were contributing to the preamble probably belongs, as Senator Schacht has said, in the 1950s, when women were perhaps not recognised in the way that they are now.There is no mention of the nobility of tenure prior to white settlement; no mention of the custodial nature of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their relationship to the land; and no apology to them for the devastation that we have caused their culture. There is no acknowledgment of their care of the land prior to white settlement.I wish to quote from an article in the Tasmanian press concerning one of the other issues that have been brought to my attention. Under the heading `Tasmania "forgotten" by Howard' it states:The Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten that Australia includes a number of islands, including Tasmania, Premier Jim Bacon said . . . Mr Bacon expressed disappointment with Prime Minister John Howard's draft preamble, saying it mentions only "our vast island continent"."Whatever happened to the numerous islands around mainland Australia," Mr Bacon said—and around Tasmania, of course—"The oversight is significant because one of those islands forgotten by the Prime Minister is a founding State of the Commonwealth—Tasmania."This was referred to Mr Les Murray, whose comment was:I can't tell you what the end result will be but I'm on the tiger's side—which, of course, is Tasmania's. Apparently, Mr Murray opposed leaving out the word `Tasmania' in the preamble. That is one of the other expressions of disgust that have come to me—that Tasmania has not been given its due place in this preamble. (Time expired)15:31:003389Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—In rising to speak to Senator Reynolds's motion that the Senate take note of the answer, I point out that this is a typical Labor Party way of trying to defend their own inadequacies. As Senator Abetz said at the beginning of his contribution, the Labor Party were in office for 13 years. They could have dealt with the difficult question of the preamble. They could have dealt with a republic. But no, they did not deal with it. They fiddled around, argued and used it as a diversion—very unlike what our Prime Minister has done. They complain about the fact that our Prime Minister, Mr Howard, claims some ownership of this issue. He has every right to claim that ownership. Mr Keating could have done the same, but he chose not to do so. He was probably too busy worrying about his piggeries and one or two other things. Mr Hawke could have acted, but he was too busy defending his back. We now have a Prime Minister who is prepared to deal with this issue and bring forward some suggestions.Senator Denman has just informed the Senate that she has had a number of phone calls regarding this issue. I have had a number of phone calls—some opposed to the proposal, some who could not care less and some who support it very strongly. At the end of the day, it will be the Australian people who determine whether or not the preamble is rewritten. But it is interesting to note where the opposition to the proposal by the Aboriginal people has come from. It is very small and rare. In fact, the communities in Western Australia, for example, want us to address the real issues that Labor failed to deal with in their 13 years of office. The Labor Party should be prepared to debate their record on Aboriginal people. They should debate the real issues that are close to their hearts and which protect their health, education, housing and so on.I remind people of some of the problems that existed in the 13 years that Labor were in office and that they did not address—unlike the coalition. Our minister, Senator Herron, in my view, has really focused on the issues that count and that Aboriginal people are worried about—that is, their life expectancy, infectious diseases and the fact that only 33 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Islander children complete schooling, compared with a national average of 77 per cent.A total of 120 remote Aboriginal communities do not have an adequate water supply. So what did Senator Herron do? He organised with Mr McLachlan to get assistance, through the Army, to many communities in the Northern Territory. Senator Margetts should be one of those people who recognise that at long last we have a minister and a government that are prepared to address these matters—not go off on a draft preamble over words, muck around, dodge issues and what have you. Those opposite had their opportunity and they blew it. It is as simple as that: they blew it.The government spent over $700 million more in real terms on indigenous specific programs over the years 1996-97 to 1999 than were spent in the last four years of the previous government. That speaks for itself. Commonwealth funding for indigenous specific programs will increase from $1.722 billion in 1995-96 to $1.887 billion in 1998-99—in real growth, almost 2.4 per cent. The government has guaranteed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs portfolio a budget for the years 1997-98 to 2001 quarantined from specific budget cuts over this period.In 1998-99, over 70 per cent of government spending on indigenous affairs will be the priority areas of health, housing, infrastructure, education, employment and training and economic development. ATSIC's housing, health, infrastructure and existing Community Development Employment programs have been quarantined from the same saving measures. Total spending on indigenous and specific primary health programs will increase by $73 million. So we have here a government of action—a minister of action—when looking at the problems which exist for Aboriginal people, and unprecedented targeting concerning the requirements of Aboriginal people. I can tell you quite clearly that the response we get from the communities is quite amazing. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.339010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:339014TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian government to:(1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 14 citizens)339040TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 40 citizens)339020TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC'.(2) The Senate votes to maintain the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 20 citizens)339020TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 20 citizens)339029TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 29 citizens)3390295F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled:We the citizens of New South Wales condemn the New South Wales Government for its continuing support for unfair dismissal laws resulting in small business employers being fearful of employing additional staff and ask that:The Australian Senate, as a matter of urgency, pass legislation to exempt all small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, from the unfair dismissal provisions of industrial law, andCalls on the Federal Government to use its powers of persuasion to have all State Government repeal unfair dismissal legislation where it exists and affects small business.As always, your petitioners humbly pray.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 29 citizens)33914147Y6Crossin Sen TrishResidents of remote Northern Territory communities deserve to get AFL football broadcasts on the same terms as other Australians.Your petitioners ask that the Senate call on the Australian government to:(1) Request the Australian Parliament to take note of the concerns of residents of remote communities in the Northern Territory regarding recent changes in television broadcasting, resulting in the possible loss of television broadcasts of AFL due to the lack of the technology necessary to receive the broadcasts;(2) Calls on the Senate to ensure that the Federal Government does everything possible to prevent the discrimination of residents of remote communities, by ensuring they are able to continue to access television broadcasts of the AFL on the same terms as other Australians living in other parts of Australia.Senator Crossin7Y6Senator Crossin(from 414 citizens)Petitions received.Notices33913391Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Friday, 23 April and 30 April 1999:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm;(b) the routine of business shall be government business only; and(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.Senator Bourne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the tragic passing away of Doctor Michael Aris, the British Tibetan studies expert, humanitarian campaigner, and husband of Burmese Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who died of cancer early on Saturday evening, 27 March 1999, (ii) the refusal of the Burmese military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to allow Daw Suu Kyi to unconditionally travel to Oxford to visit her dying husband, (iii) that this refusal amounts to a callous and cruel disregard for even the most basic humanitarian principles, as does the refusal of the SPDC to grant visiting visas to Daw Suu Kyi's two sons, (iv) that the apparent change in the SPDC's policy in relation to Daw Suu Kyi's attendance at her husband's funeral is conditional on her giving up her people's struggle for democracy and human rights, and (v) that the SPDC has reneged on earlier undertakings in relation to Daw Suu Kyi's freedom of movement, but, more particularly, that its refusal to allow the National League for Democracy (NLD) to form government after democratic elections means the SPDC cannot be trusted to abide by its undertaking that Daw Suu Kyi will be allowed back into Burma and retain leadership of the NLD; and(b) calls on the SPDC to unconditionally allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to attend her husband's funeral in Oxford on Friday, 2 April 1999, and return without fear of retribution or `special' treatment.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 be extended to 31 March 1999.Committees339133913391Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting Senator O'Chee will withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 260 and made under the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning the regulations.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—2 December 1998The Hon Michael Wooldridge MPMinister for Health and Aged CareParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1998 (No.2), Statutory Rules 1998 No.260, which will enable the lodgement of an application for the Secretary to declare that the applicant's turnover is of low volume and low value.New subregulation 4C(3) obliges the Secretary to either accept or reject an application for a person to be registered as having a low volume/low value turnover as soon as practicable, but does not provide a time limit within which a decision must be made. The Committee notes that new r.4D permits the Secretary to delegate the power to consider such applications to any officer in the Department.The interests of applicants for such declarations may be better protected if subregulation 4C(3) were to provide instead that any application in relation to which the applicant had not been advised of a decision within, say 28 days, would be deemed to have been refused. This would trigger the applicant's right to independent review of that decision and provide a clear time frame from the outset.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator the Hon Grant TamblingSenator for the Northern TerritoryParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged CareParliament HouseCanberra ACT 26003/80 The EsplanadeGPO Box 4196 Darwin NT 0801Senator W.G. O'Chee Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 2 December 1998 to Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge, concerning the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 2) , Statutory Rules 1998 No. 260. As Parliamentary Secretary with executive responsibility for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), I am responding on behalf of the Government. I apologise for the delay in responding.Your Committee has noted that new subregulation 4C(3) obliges the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to either accept or reject an application for a person to be registered as having a low volume and low value turnover as soon as practicable, but does not provide a time limit within which a decision must be made. Your Committee has suggested that, in the interests of the applicants, subregulation 4C(3) should provide that if an applicant has not been advised of a decision within 28 days then the application would be deemed to have been refused.I agree that the applicants' interests would be better protected by the inclusion of a clear time frame in subregulation 4C(3), however to allow a proper assessment of each application a period of 40 days is considered a more appropriate time frame.The relevant amendments to subregulation 4C(3) will be made in the near future.Yours sincerelyGRANT TAMBLING11 March 1999Notices33923392Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in the name of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Woodley) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 152 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, relating to native title legislation, 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 standing in her name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Evans for today, relating to the disallowance of the Social Security (Meaning of Seasonal Work) Determination 1998, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 164 standing in her name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 (relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee) and general business notice of motion no. 107 (proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald)) standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, be postponed till 19 April 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion no. 2 (relating to the disallowance of the Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998) and no. 6 (reference of matters to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee) standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, be postponed till 31 March 1999.Miscellaneous3393Motions (by Senator Allison)—by leave—agreed to:96 That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the 1997 Jabiluka uranium mine environmental impact statement states that only 10 additional personnel will be required in year 2 of operations following construction, and (ii) very few local indigenous people have been employed at the Ranger Uranium Mine;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for misleading the Senate by claiming that 1 000 jobs will be created at the Jabiluka mine when this is clearly not the case; and(c) urges the Government: (i) to conduct studies into the number of jobs in the tourist industry which will be lost should Kakadu lose its world heritage status, and (ii) to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.98 That the Senate—(a) notes that there have been more than 100 health and safety incidents identified by the Office of the Supervising Scientist at the Ranger uranium mine over the past 18 years, resulting in damage to both people and the environment;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for misleading the Senate by claiming that the Ranger uranium mine had not damaged the environment and that, for this reason, the Jabiluka uranium mine should go ahead; and(c) urges the Government to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.99 That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the royalties from the Ranger uranium mine have largely been spent on public services which should be provided by governments, and (ii) public services are grossly inadequate in the area of the Ranger uranium mine, that 90 per cent of indigenous children living at the township of Jairu have scabies and that poor and overcrowded housing limits prospects of controlling the disease;(b) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for suggesting that traditional owners have enjoyed benefits of royalties from the Ranger uranium mine not available to other Australians; and (c) urges the Government to proclaim the Kakadu world heritage property as threatened and to then issue a determination to stop further construction work on the mine.Miscellaneous339415:42:003394Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that notice of motion No. 163, which calls on the Japanese government to release three Greenpeace activists, be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to the notice being taken as formal?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I ask that this motion be deferred to a later hour of the day.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown has not moved to postpone. He is wanting the motion to be brought on now.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I would have to oppose formally if the motion is not postponed.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Madam Deputy President, this is a very important motion. If it is going to help the honourable senator, I move:That general business notice of motion No. 163 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the arrest and continuing detention of Greenpeace activists in Japan, be postponed until a later hour this day.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents3394339410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present the following government responses which have been presented to the President of the Senate after the Senate rose on 25 March 1999 in accordance with the terms of the standing orders. Publication of the documents was authorised.The list read as follows—Superannuation—Select Committee— 15th report—Super guarantee: its track record—Government response. 17th report—Super and broken work patterns—Government response.339410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present corrigenda to the Department of the Senate portfolio additional estimates statements.Miscellaneous33943394339415:45:003394Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates for 1998-99 and correspondence relating to a possible adverse reflection by a witness.Committees33943394339415:45:003394O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present report No. 20 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and Treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 , together with submissions, Hansard record of proceedings and minutes.Ordered that the report be printed.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate Senator Cooney's tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—In all, this report considers eight treaties covering a wide range of subjects, including:. the destruction of anti-personnel mines;. the Bougainville peace monitoring group; and. economic cooperation with Indonesia.In each case the committee has concluded that it is in Australia's national interest to ratify the proposed treaties.In the time available to me, I will comment briefly on the major elements of the report.The Treaties Committee is strongly supportive of the Convention on the Prohibition and Destruction of Anti-personnel Mines. The Convention is an historic step towards the aim of a total global ban on anti-personal mines. The Australian Government's commitment to the Convention is to be applauded. As is the passage, by this parliament, of the Anti-personnel Mines Convention Act 1998—which implements in Australian law the obligations imposed by the Convention.Our report makes two recommendations aimed at continuing the momentum towards a global ban on anti-personnel mines:. first, that the Minister for Defence formulate principles to guide the retention of mines for defence training purposes, so as to clarify the process and timeframe for the destruction of those mines not required for training purposes; and. second, that, in appropriate international fora, the Australian Government put a strong position against the development of replacement weapons technologies which have indiscriminate and inhumane effects similar to those possessed by anti-personnel mines.The committee also strongly supports the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol.Australia has played a significant role in the Bougainville peace process:. by facilitating truce and ceasefire discussions between the warring parties;. by contributing around 250 civilian and unarmed Defence Force personnel to the work of the Peace Monitoring Group; and. by sponsoring a substantial and growing aid program.Given the scale and nature of the devastation caused by the conflict, there is much work to be done to restore even the most basic community services to those living on Bougainville. Australia's aid program will continue to play a crucial role in re-establishing services and infrastructure; in building new systems of administration; and in restoring a functioning economy.The third major treaty considered in Report 20 is the Development Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia.This Agreement is intended to provide a generic legal framework for Australia's development cooperation program with Indonesia. It is a usefully document, which will simplify the project development processes for both governments and for the non-government organisations commissioned to run aid projects in Indonesia.The Agreement is important not only for what it provides, but because it signals that, at a time of great social and political upheaval in Indonesia, Australia is committed to building structures to support a continuing and cooperative relationship with one of its nearest neighbours.I would finally like to refer to the proposed Amendment to the Health Services Agreement with the United Kingdom.While we support the amendment, and acknowledge that reciprocal medical treatment agreements are of considerable benefit to Australians travelling overseas, we are concerned about the adequacy of the costing information upon which such agreements are based. In this, as in previous cases, we were not provided with sufficient information to assess whether both parties to the agreement would be exposed to similar costs.We have recommended that, when negotiating such agreements in future, the Department of Health and Aged Care undertake a more rigorous assessment of the likely costs, to both parties, of the agreement.In conclusion, I thank all those who have contributed our reviews. These contributions are important and help promote greater transparency in the treaty-making process.I commend the report to the Senate.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.3395339515:46:003395Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 62nd general report, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard , as much as I would like to speak about the wonderful work that the Public Works Committee does.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the report which I have tabled is the committee's sixty-second General Report, covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1998.This report covers the work of the 32nd committee, from 1 January 1998 to 31 August 1998, when the House of Representatives was dissolved and parliament was prorogued, and the 33rd committee from 10 December, when it met for the first and only time for the balance of the calendar year.As such, the report deals with committee operations under the Chairmanship of the Member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), ably supported by the Vice-Chairman, the Honourable Member for Throsby (Mr Hollis).The Thirty-second committee tabled five reports during 1998.The total estimated cost of projects examined by the committee was $560.67 million.The election period limited the committee's operations during the year. The five reports presented is the same number of reports presented during 1996. This relatively small number does not reflect the complexity of two references which consumed considerable time. These were:. the proposed new facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies; and. the proposed East Coast Armament Complex, Point Wilson, Vic.It is rare for the committee's inquiries to extend beyond one or two days of public hearings. One reason for this has been the thoroughness of submissions and oral evidence presented by proponent departments in support of proposed works. Another reason is the general support of proposed works by state and local government and interested organisations and individuals. It is when these factors are lacking that the committee's inquiries may be lengthy and protracted.The committee's inquiry into the Museum of Australia extended from December 1997 to mid-April 1998, during which four public hearings were held.Although recommending that the project proceed, in view of a number of uncertainties, principally about the cost of the work and the suitability of the project delivery mechanism to be adopted, the committee requested to be provided with six-monthly progress reports. The government agreed with this request.The committee's inquiry into the East Coast Armament Complex was also lengthy. The project referred to the committee was estimated to cost $72.27 million and involved the construction of facilities at Point Wilson (Vic) to support the ammunitioning and deammunitioning of RAN ships and to provide facilities for the importation of munitions for the Defence force.The committee's inquiry extended from mid-February to mid-June 1998 and involved public hearings and inspections at six locations spread over geographical locations from far north Queensland to coastal Victoria. The length of the inquiry can be attributed to an erroneous perception by the Department of Defence that the scope of the committee's inquiry would not extend beyond an examination of the need for and the scope of the facility to be constructed at Point Wilson. This inquiry provides a good illustration of the committee's role in safeguarding the public interest.The report canvasses a number of other matters raised in the committee's reports during the year, overseas works, details of medium works submitted by Departments, Commonwealth fire safety policy and amendments to the Public Works Committee Act.As I mentioned earlier, during 1998 the parliament was well-served by the committee under the Chairmanship of the Honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the Vice-Chairmanship of the Honourable Member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). I believe the report demonstrates how the honourable senators served the parliament through the committee with dedication and distinction and upheld the long tradition of bipartisanship which has been the hallmark of the committee's operations.I would also like to place on record a vote of appreciation for the hard work of the other members of the committee during 1998 and, of course, the very capable Secretariat.I commend the report to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.3396339615:46:003396Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present a corrected version of the finance minute to the committee's report No. 537—The Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project . The finance minute was previously tabled on 11 March 1999 with pages 3 and 4 omitted.3396339615:47:003396Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I present the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the GST and a New Tax System, together with Hansard record of proceedings, tabled documents and supplementary material.Ordered that the report be printed.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, just before you continue, I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers to this motion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I would ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. I understand the chair of the committee has eight minutes and three other speakers will have seven minutes each.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I want to acknowledge first of all the extraordinarily high quality of the submissions made to this inquiry and to put on the record my thanks to all of those for the time and effort put into submissions and presentations. The arguments and the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the government's tax package would be extremely harmful to the health of our environment and to the health of our cities. This report is a very well documented account of the negative effect of the government's new tax package over these wide-ranging fields.What has been absolutely clear to the committee is the fact that the government has missed a rare opportunity to reform the tax system in a way that has positive outcomes for the environment and the arts. Australia is one of the few countries in the OECD which has not implemented ecological tax reform and, rarer still, in proposing to significantly reduce the price of fuel. Witnesses pointed out that not only was Australia proceeding along a path which would seriously worsen our air pollution problems but also vehicles were currently only required to comply with emission standards which are at least five years behind those of Europe and the US.The committee's attention was drawn to Australia's international obligations on greenhouse gas emissions. This tax package sends a powerful message to the international community that Australia does not consider greenhouse issues to be of central importance to the nation's future or, for that matter, to the world's. It has been difficult to cast any sort of positive light on the policy objectives which must have informed this tax reform package. Central to the deliberations of the committee were whether benefits to farmers and business could be delivered in a more environmentally responsible way, and I believe the recommendations do just that.It appears that the package was prepared in isolation by Treasury and that neither Environment Australia, the Greenhouse Office nor the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts were consulted by Treasury. Neither were the many submitters with expertise in the field.The diesel fuel currently imported to Australia has high levels of sulfur which results in a much higher level of particle emissions than do gaseous fuels. Medical evidence linking particulates from diesel engines with conditions like asthma translate into health and social costs which some estimate to be as high as $2 billion per year. There is sufficient evidence on the health impacts of diesel fuels to suggest that even the current level of diesel use should be lowered and powerful incentives and standards introduced to accelerate Australia's progress towards cleaner engines and diesel fuel with much lower sulfur content. The committee heard that it was likely that old polluting diesel vehicles would be dumped into Australia unless our standards were brought into line with Europe and the US.Our present tax system does not impose an excise on gaseous fuels, and this provides some incentive to changing over from petrol and diesel to LPG and CNG. This industry would collapse under the new tax package. When the New Zealand government removed the price differential between gas and diesel there was a dramatic reduction in the use of gaseous fuels. Already, decisions are being made by bus operators in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Geelong to pull back from converting from diesel to gas. Heavy transport engines are now available which can run either dedicated CNG or with dual fuel options. This package would discourage any move towards the use of these vehicles.The massive reduction in diesel will bring about a very significant increase in road transport at the expense of rail with very serious consequences. A GST on public transport means that bus and rail will become more expensive relative to private transport. Solar hot-water services would rise in price by around four per cent relative to the price of similar gas or electricity hot-water systems. The world leadership that Australia currently has in solar electricity development and the potential for the industry to generate revenue in excess of $1 billion every year is also at risk.The reduction in diesel fuel excise would bankrupt the oil recycling industry, leaving around 150 million litres of lubricating oil being dumped rather than recycled. In the view of the Democrats, the $3.5 billion in petrol and diesel tax cuts should be significantly reduced, and measures should be introduced to see that the remaining cuts are targeted to reduce transport costs for rural producers and are properly tailored to deliver better ecological practices.It is the Democrats' recommendation to amend the tax package to: continue to tax petrol and diesel through the excise system rather than the GST; maintain the current 100 per cent diesel rebate for all agricultural and other fully rebateable off-road uses; cap the rebate for mining and other use at the current level and provide a pro rata amount for all off-road use, bringing in line industries such as tourism; provide rail with a 100 per cent diesel rebate, recognising that rail, too, is an off-road use; provide a tightly targeted rebate for heavy road transport by increasing the weight threshold from 3.5 to 20 tonnes; require companies claiming the rebate to progressively reduce fuel emissions; apply an additional sales tax to new motor vehicles with low fuel efficiency, based on a sliding scale; zero rate public transport; introduce a range of non-tax related measures to reduce pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions; and other measures to improve the viability of the gaseous fuel industry through exemptions and capital grants.The Democrats recognise the important contribution the arts make to our cultural identity, and we also recognise the financial vulnerability of many arts organisations and artists. I think there is little doubt that the arts sector will be damaged by this package. The performing arts groups are already experiencing severe losses, and the incomes of individual artists are already amongst the lowest of any working group.I would like to finish by saying that the preparation of this report has stretched the resources of the committee secretariat to the limit. I want to sincerely thank Mr Richard Selth, Mr Ross Kilmurray, Mr Jason Vickery and Mr Tony Burke for an excellent report and for their patience and willingness to work long hours to have it tabled—not just in time but two days earlier than the due date. The secretariat had to meet very tight timelines for this inquiry whilst also conducting hearings into the government's new Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, which were held in each capital city.I commend this report to the Senate and hope the government can see their way clear to making urgent changes to their tax package as a result of such overwhelming evidence.15:55:003398Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—This is the first report in a series of four on the GST. I would like to make some general comments before I get into some of the specific issues of what we are reporting on today.We went to the last election totally up-front about a GST package. We said precisely what we are going to do in terms of collection of this tax and the way in which we are going to compensate people for that tax increase. We had a very wide-ranging set of measures in terms of income tax cuts and increased welfare benefits to offset that.The Australian people, in October last year, gave their verdict. We went to the election with this tax package as the central issue, and we were re-elected. What we have in the Senate is, again, obstruction of the government program. We had the setting up of a series of inquiries—not one but four. After the time it has taken, and the amount of travel, to collect evidence around Australia, what do we end up with at the end of the day? We have a report and at the end of that report the Australian Democrats have added their view; the Greens have taken a slightly different view; the Labor Party has a different view again; and the coalition has a different view again. That is exactly what we went into the last election on, and here we are, after all this process, all this time and all this cost, with precisely the same outcome again. What a waste of time it has all been.There are none so blind as those who will not see, and that applied in this set of hearings. We had interest groups come along and provide us with evidence, all based on price increases with the GST, and I do not recall one ever taking into account the fact that we had a compensation package. In areas like the arts they were talking about changes in the price of tickets. They took absolutely no account of the fact that there were also changes in compensation through income tax changes and increased welfare benefits. They also totally ignored the fact that we are in a time of rising real income and incredibly low inflation and the fact that the arts industries have thrived over the last 20 years in times of very high inflation. We now have low inflation, rising real incomes and a compensation package for people who want to attend arts functions. To claim there is going to be some great crash in the arts as a result of this is absolute nonsense. As a matter of fact, I found a lot of the language—particularly in the recommendations from the ALP—extremist in nature, because a lot of the evidence showed that any effect was going to be very minor and there was sufficient compensation in most cases.I would like to turn to the main point of the report, which dealt with the effect on the environment. The emphasis here was very much on fuels—on the way in which use of diesel fuel would change as a result of this tax. It defies the imagination to think that anyone, because there are lower prices of fuel, will suddenly start driving around a lot more and burning up that fuel. To back that up, I would like to quote from a news release from the National Farmers Federation. The news release states:"Are the AMA and the ACF seriously suggesting that farmers will spend more time and more money than they need to harvest grain or plant crops, that truck drivers will take the long way round between Sydney and Melbourne, or that passenger vehicle drivers in our major cities will choose to spend more time in traffic, just because the cost of diesel is reduced!", Mr Donges said.I think this points out the absurdity of the proposition. Where is this big increase in fuel use going to come from? Some have claimed there will be an intermodal shift between road and rail. The evidence from the Road Transport Forum tended to show that this would be, if anything, quite minor; that the shift to suddenly transporting goods by road instead of rail would be quite tiny indeed.The thing that it totally lacks is in the context of what is happening with technology. Because of the emissions standards in Europe and the United States, there is now a major shift towards compressed gas technology in big engines such as those that drive trucks and buses. That will dramatically reduce greenhouse gases from road transport, despite anything else that is happening. So all the claims and all the evidence about terrible health outcomes from this were totally exaggerated as well.I suggest people look at the evidence from the Road Transport Forum. I suggest people look at the evidence from Environment Australia, particularly from Dr Beale, which shows that the positions of the Labor Party, the Greens and the Democrats are a gross overstatement of effect. Yet again, as they did in the election campaign, they are trying to scare people on some things that are not major concerns but are minor concerns. They totally ignore counterbalancing measures: in the case of transport, with new technology; in the case of the arts, with compensating money that is coming from the tax package. The people of Australia should be very aware of how these opposition parties are trying to dupe them on these matters. If we are to have a fully competitive economy that is international best practice, this country must move to have a reformed tax system. The GST package that we went to the election honestly on is the one that should be adopted in this country.16:01:003399Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I rise to speak to this report. At the outset, I commend the secretariat and other members of the committee for their arduous application to this inquiry and also to the other concurrent inquiry in respect of environment legislation, which has still not been completed. The committee has had a lot of work to do, and they should be commended for the way they have done it.This was an extremely useful inquiry. The inquiry went across the country, and it went across sectors that will be affected by the GST package. This inquiry in a sense did the job the government was not prepared to do. We consulted and we met with people. We listened to industry concerns, and we met with environmentalists and specialists. It has to be said, at the end of the day, that the overwhelming evidence—if not the total evidence—that the committee heard expressed concerns as to the government's processes and policies. We found no consultations. We found no consideration of some quite critical issues. We found total disregard for the concerns of those who have concerns for the environment, for the arts industry, for the books industry and particularly for new emerging technological industries—export industries that will be very negatively affected by the government's proposals.It has to be said that all but the government senators have agreed on the flaws in the GST package and, as I said, there are quite a few of them. Not a voice was put to us in support of the government's proposals. Many voices were put to us in opposition. Many voices were concerned because of negative impacts on the arts industries, on literacy levels and particularly on the environment. The flaws are many. The major flaw is that the government in no way considered the impacts of its package—for instance, on the environment. The only process that has been embarked upon by the government to consider the environmental aspects of this package, which has been years in the making, has been commissioned by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in recent days—long after the event. He started the process of commissioning it last November after the election, but it has only been in the last few days that a consultant has been given the job to do the work.We are concerned because we see that the GST package is fundamentally flawed when it comes to environmental issues and to some pretty critical industries in the Australian community. The evidence before the committee was that the GST package would have a negative impact on all areas examined by the committee, including: the environment, especially in urban areas; public transport services; emerging technologies; exports; the arts, including books and literature; non-profit organisations; and information technology and communications.One sector that spoke very strongly and with deep concern as to the impact of the GST on its business was the rail sector. If people anticipate that the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line will be completed under current funding arrangements, then they have something coming to them. If people think that the Melbourne to Darwin line will be completed under the funding arrangements announced by the Prime Minister, then they have something coming to them as well. This particular tax proposal sounds the death knell for those two railway lines unless the government is prepared to increase subsidies towards them. Why is this so? Because the impact of the government's fuel tax changes will mean greater reliance on and greater use of road transport as opposed to rail transport. That was a concern put to us not just by Australian Rail but by Queensland Rail and by a number of independent commentators as well.The impacts on the environment are manifold. The government will in no way be able to meet its commitments to Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction targets. It will in no way be able to meet commitments to urban Australia in terms of environmental clean-up and the quality of air in our crowded suburbs. This is evidence that came to us across the spectrum. The natural gas industry came to the committee saying, `There are two things: first of all, we haven't been consulted; secondly, contracts that we expected for the use of natural gas vehicles and contracts to supply buses in New South Wales and other states are now under a cloud because of the economics of the GST package, which make the use of natural gas less productive and less profitable than other fuels.' Those sectors need to be considered, and they are a major concern as well.This is a package which, at the end of the day, also fails in terms of the compensation aspects. When you talk to the arts industry, the Autogas Committee of Australia—as we did—and to those involved in waste oil collection you can see that not only are they going to be negatively affected but also the compensation package which the government is touting across the country will in no way meet their concerns.Michael Lynch of the Sydney Opera House, for instance, expressed the concerns expressed by many when he said:My concerns are . . . with both the major organisations—including his—their stress point and the reason they have called an inquiry into them and the small organisations. The range of changes and the range of compliance issues they will need to deal with . . . are going to be extraordinarily onerous. . . . . . . . .I took notice of the comments about the small business package, but from my point of view a lot of small businesses in Australia are going to be going for that $500 million.That $500 million will not hit first base when it comes to the impacts on the industries that this committee was concerned about. As I say, going back to the primary focus of this committee's deliberations, all the evidence before the committee points to disastrous and long-term damage to the environment.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Nonsense.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Tierney, you are not blind, but you refuse to see. The evidence is that there will be an increase in diesel fuel pollutants and greenhouse gases and a reduction in economic incentives to use alternative, environmentally friendly fuels and technologies. If you think it is nonsense, you go back to those industries. You did not have enough guts to say to them face to face that they were talking nonsense; you shirked away from that. You go to those industries and say, `Look, you're telling us you are going to go bankrupt, but it is all nonsense.' It is not your job that is at risk; it is theirs.16:08:003401Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens would like to share this seven minutes between them. I have followed as much as I could of this committee, including getting abuse at times from Senator Tierney—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—It's good to see you here today.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—As I said, I followed as much as I could, including getting abused by Senator Tierney when he did not actually turn up to the Perth one either.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—One. How many did you go to?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I would like to put on record that, having attended the committee hearings via a telephone link from Perth, my staff member and I got up at about five o'clock in the morning on a public holiday to listen to the evidence of this committee.Senator Tierney interjecting—DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—The reality is that Senator Tierney has got up here and tried to diminish, demean and devalue the vast evidence given by community groups, environment groups, medical groups, arts groups all around Australia—this is why I am angry. He did not like what he heard. The coalition did not like it because these are issues of which the best interpretation is that they are an unintended consequence of this package. When the full Senate select committee looked at these issues on some small aspects relating to the mining industry, yes, the Liberal senators were impressed. Yes, they looked at each other, nodded wisely and said, `Ooh! Unintended consequence. Let us look at these and make sure we can make changes.' But when it is about the environment, about whether or not we are going to encourage people to make changes towards purchasing diesel rather than gas—you would have to be blind not to see the advertisements already in the media for new gas vehicles, for new diesel technology. The diesel distributors, the people who import diesel and diesel technology, cannot believe their luck. It is not going to affect most of the people in rural communities. The impact is mostly going to be on the urban environment, on our health, our future and our greenhouse gas emissions.We also need to look at the impact on the community. When it comes to business costs, yes, the coalition are impressed. But when it comes to community costs it is, `Gosh, who are they? Why are they important? Oh gosh, let us think about the business community and the private sector.' But when it is the community, then it is, `No, you can get over it;' the arts, `Hey, you can live.' The reality is that when real impacts on real people are mentioned, the coalition turn their backs.The Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens have put together some recommendations. We have agreed with the general concepts produced by the main committee report, but we have also made some specific recommendations. I commend those recommendations to honourable senators. They include that the proposed reduction in all fuel excises be abandoned and the acknowledgment of the extensive short- and long-term health, environment and economic costs. They look at making sure the government actually do their homework, which they did not do, and calculate the whole range of economic, environment and social costs and that they explore less environmental and health destructive ways of assisting the rural communities.We should be looking at further policy options to ameliorate immense negative impacts on the cultural industries and also at an extension of the inadequate $500 million package to small businesses, community and charity organisations, because it will not go far in the analysis. I shall leave the rest of this presentation to my colleague Senator Brown.16:13:003402Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What an indictment of the government policy against the interests of Australia this matter is.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—You should have come to the hearings.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Mr Acting Deputy President, despite the braying interjections opposite, this is a serious matter. What we have here is a policy which is going to seriously damage Australia's environment. It is a policy which is going to cut across Australia's obligations to the international community and to future generations. The GST, as the committee has discovered, is a recipe for spewing carcinogens into our most populous areas, with consequent horrendous results, both human and economic, down the line. The GST package is a recipe for boosting the production of greenhouse gases in this country at a time when we need to be cutting back. The GST is even a recipe for getting our forests to the wharves $1 a tonne cheaper so that the woodchippers can continue the rape and destruction of one of this nation's most desired assets.Not only does the GST package not help poorer people, but when it comes to the environmental aspects it also actually materially degrades the living environment for all Australians in the future, be they poor or rich. It is a failure of government policy because when you are bringing in a comprehensive tax change you have to look at the ramifications for the community right across the board and into the future. The GST package is not only anti-environment, it compounds the problem of fixing environmental taxes into the system so that we can catch up in the future with Scandinavia and other countries by taxing polluters and giving incentives to those who do the right thing by the environment.I would say to our friends in the Democrats: we warned about this before the last election. Nothing has changed. The information has come in to endorse what the Greens said last year. This package is an environmental horror. It goes against the interests of this country and future generations. It is one more good reason why, when the GST package comes into this place, it should be voted down. It is time for the Democrats to change tack and to say they will not accept a package which has such an environmental impost buried in it. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees3402340210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—The President has received letters from party leaders and an Independent senator nominating senators to be members of a committee and seeking variations to the membership of other committees.3403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees.Leave not granted.Bills3403r750Billsr732Billsr729Billsr7313403Bills received from the House of Representatives.3403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have one 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.340316:18:003403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave not granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I table the second reading speeches.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 be listed on the Notice Paper as a separate order of the day.Bills3403r6893403Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.340316:20:003403Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave not granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I table the second reading speech.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills3403Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] A message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Airports Amendment Bill 1999 Committees34043404340416:21:003404Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I present the interim report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the committee's inquiry into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 . I seek leave to incorporate the report in Hansard, and to move a motion to grant an extension of time for the committee to present its final report on the bills.Leave granted.The report read as follows—INTERIM REPORTClassification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998BackgroundOn Wednesday 24 March 1999, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee tabled its 4th Report of 1999, recommending that the above two bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The proposed date of a public hearing was Friday 26 March, and the proposed date of a report was Monday 29th March. The Committee did not proceed with a hearing on 26 March. It is now tabling an interim report in order to meet the requirement to report on 29 March.IssuesThe Committee met briefly on 25 March to note the reference and to determine available dates to hold public hearings. It also agreed to make an interim report, rather than simply request an extension of time, in order to note two linked issues: the process of referring bills and the other commitments of Committees.Referral of billsThe Committee believes it is important for the selection of bills committee to ensure that all potential references are advised to Committee chairs in order for advice to be given about possible reporting dates.The Committee also believes it is important for proposed dates of hearings and reports to be examined before being accepted. Even if the Legal and Constitutional Committee had no other work, it would have been impossible for it to contact all twenty three proposed witnesses, obtain submissions, advise the departments concerned, determine who would give evidence, and hold a hearing within such a limited timeframe. Other resources are also required such as Hansard services.To write a report based on a hearing called at such short notice would also be difficult, because any additional comments or dissenting report could only be drafted after the Chair's draft was ready. This would require all involved staff to work all weekend. It would also mean that Hansard would be under pressure to provide a transcript, also over the weekend. It is sometimes necessary to provide reports under these circumstances, but no reason has been given why this would be necessary in this instance.Other work of committeesThe Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee is currently examining three migration bills and finalising a report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998. This last bill is of considerable significance and the Committee has given it priority so that a report can be tabled this week. This has meant that committee members have been involved in writing comments during the last week and over the past weekend, and the Committee Secretariat was not in a position to take on additional work for this new reference.It is also worth noting that such short reporting deadlines do not inspire confidence in the fairness of Senate processes. Some of the organisations that wish to give evidence have stated that they were also surprised at the short time recommended, and would be pleased to see more time devoted to the matter.Request The Committee respectfully requests that the Senate, through the Selection of Bills Committee, reconsider the suggested hearing and reporting dates, and do so in consultation with the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Suggested DatesGiven other commitments, the Committee suggests that any hearings be held during the week beginning 12 April 1999, and the report be tabled on 19 April 1999. This allows time for submissions to be made and for appropriate consideration of the issues, even though there is limited time for the production of a transcript.Marise Payne Jim McKiernanChair Deputy ChairMarch 1999 March 1999Motion (by Senator Payne) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998, be extended to 19 April 1999.Bills3405r7433405Consideration resumed.16:22:003405Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—When we were last considering this bill before question time today, the minister's response was fairly limited or scratchy, from my point of view, in relation to why the government was actually spending more on what in effect was the no case. Senator Ellison indicated that half of $15 million would go to each of the yes and no campaigns, first of all saying that this was an education campaign which was not about presenting a case. Then the response goes on to admit that half of the $15 million would go to the yes/no advertising campaigns. This ignores the fact that in relation to the yes/no advertising campaigns, according to the explanatory memorandum and according to Senator Ellison, the people putting those together would be chosen somehow neutrally from those people attending the Constitutional Convention. Quite clearly, just about everybody admits that that was a very narrow process. The reality is that it was as controlled as it could be. So if you choose people from the same original process and then say, `We want you to continue with this narrow process,' you are indeed simply continuing that process. So even the yes/no debate is nobbled in that situation.I would like further information on spending that $4.5 million on basically explaining such things as the current Constitution. How much of that money will go on explaining the current Constitution and in what form will it explain the current Constitution? Why could that not be considered to be a case for the status quo?16:24:003405Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Just to reiterate and clarify what I said earlier and make it absolutely clear, we have $19.5 million, $15 million of which is to go on the yes and no case arguments. That is a separate and discrete campaign where there will be two different points of view put forward. The public education campaign makes up the remaining $4.5 million. That will deal with three aspects: information on the current system that is in place; information as to the process of referendum; and information as to what the actual question will be when the people of Australia go to the referendum in November. That is in relation to the $4.5 million only. They are the three aspects of the expenditure.It has not been determined as yet how that will be divided up in funds. The education campaign in that regard will not advance a yes or no case, it will not advance the merits of keeping the status quo; it will simply be a question of providing information and education to the people of Australia. In doing that, the referendum steering group, which comprises the Attorney-General and me, which will be overseeing this will have a panel of experts advising it. That panel of experts is soon to be made up and as yet has not been determined. They will be advising us in relation to the wording used and the information that will be provided.16:26:003405Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a further question on that. The minister still has not explained why the information on the current system, that is, our current Constitution, is not part of the $7.5 million for the no case. We have had this Constitution for over a hundred years. Could the minister explain why a separate amount of money—he is not even telling us how much it will be—is actually going to be expended on talking about a Constitution we have had for over a hundred years, basically explaining—if you like, promoting—the current system? Why is this not part of the no case?16:27:003405Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There is nothing whatsoever to exclude the no case or the yes case promoting the merits of the status quo or otherwise in their advertising campaigns, which will be funded by the $15 million. There is nothing at all to stop them from doing that if they see fit. But the government does believe it has a responsibility to provide at the outset a neutral campaign of education and information for the people of Australia as to what the current system entails. You simply have to travel around Australia to realise that people do have other things on their mind than the make-up of the parliament and the constitutional system of this country, and the government thinks that it is appropriate that, when the people of Australia come to determine what the position will be, they have a neutral campaign of information.But there is nothing to stop the yes or no case using the funds allocated to them to provide information as to the current system; nothing at all. The government saw its duty as providing independently of that a neutral campaign of education and information. It would be, I think, irresponsible of the government simply to move towards a referendum without providing the people of Australia with any education or any information at all. And I might remind Senator Margetts that this was a recommendation of the Constitutional Convention, and we are following that recommendation.16:28:003406Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It was also a recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that certain matters go into the preamble, Minister. You are not suggesting to us that the convention's recommendation in that respect has been picked up, are you?16:29:003406Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The preamble is irrelevant to this legislation. What we are talking about is the funding of the yes and no cases and the question of public information. The preamble will be debated in other legislation which will be coming before the Senate.16:29:003406Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We are talking about a referendum, and you did talk about the Constitutional Convention. That is why I asked you that question in respect of the Constitutional Convention's recommendation as to the preamble. While Senator Margetts works out other questioning, can I ask you whether the funding of the no case will go to funding of the no case for the preamble. I know you suggest that there is another piece of legislation, but we are talking about funding for the referendum to be held in November. Can you tell us whether a decision has been taken to provide funding for the no case for the preamble?16:30:003406Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The funding is only for the purposes of the question on whether Australia should become a republic.16:30:003406Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Sure, but the question was a bit broader than that and it used this legislation and this part of the committee discussion as a peg to hang itself on. The question is: has a decision been taken to fund a no case on the preamble? Secondly, in respect of this legislation in terms of the no case on the referendum, has a decision been taken as to who would constitute an eligible person for funding for the no case? How will money be distributed between different interest groups in respect of that no case?16:30:003406Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There has been no decision on funding for the preamble either for the yes or no cases, respectively. It is the decision of the government that there will be only public funding available for the yes and no case provisions which relate to the republic only, so there will be no funding for the question of the preamble. I think that renders the second part of your question obsolete.As far as the funding for the republic goes, the funding will only be to those yes and no committees. There will be no division of the $7½ million on either side between the respective interest groups. It will go to the committee to deal with as it sees fit, and there will be certain guidelines as to how that is done. When I say `guidelines', I mean `accountability'. They will have to spend the money on their case for the republic. They cannot spend it on something completely different, for instance, and arrangements are being put in place for there to be supervision as to the expenditure for accountability purposes. But the yes and no case committees will have a discretion as to how they spend it. On advertising or what form the advertisements will take they will have a discretion.16:32:003407Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—So there will be no separate funding for the no case on the preamble. You would accept, however, that the interest groups that would be opposed to the preamble would be quite different from the interest groups that might be opposed to the republic question. Can you explain why decisions have been taken not to recognise that difference in constituencies and not to provide funding for the no case on the preamble?16:32:003407Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For a start, the government has taken a view that the question of whether Australia becomes a republic or not is one which is best advanced by there being a yes and no case. It is apparent that there will be people voting against the legislation in the parliament and they of course will have carriage of the no case when the AEC distributes that. For the yes case, similarly those members of the House of Representatives and senators would have the responsibility for the carriage of the yes case which the AEC will be responsible for sending out.The government is not aware at this stage of anyone who would be voting no in relation to the preamble, although it is a free vote on the coalition side. I can say to Senator Bolkus that the government's decision has been that only the republic question should be funded. The terms of reference for the Constitutional Convention were to look at whether Australia should become a republic or not, and in the terms of reference no mention was made of a preamble. The preamble was something which came about during the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, and the government believes that it is the republic question which should be funded. The preamble is a separate question, as you pointed out, and we have indicated that we will have two separate ballots to give those people who want to campaign for one and not the other that opportunity.16:34:003407Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You have got to be joking! You started off by saying that the government is not aware of anyone who will vote against the preamble. Isn't it fairer to say that you are not aware of anyone who is going to vote for it apart from the Prime Minister, his wife, Professor Blainey, and possibly Les Murray—but maybe not? There is a very strong body of opinion in the community and this parliament that the preamble does us no service as a nation and does the Prime Minister no service as a Prime Minister, so you have to acknowledge that the chances of there being a no case on the preamble are pretty big at this stage.I find it quite amazing that you are prepared to fund a no case for one of the referenda but are not prepared to fund a no case in respect of the preamble. I would have thought that there were some legal obligations on the government to provide resources for a no case in respect of either referendum proposal. Have you taken legal advice to ascertain whether in fact you can deny funding for a no case on the preamble?16:36:003407Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There are two aspects to that question. I will deal with the latter one first. If there is a no vote against the legislation—if we can put it that way—in relation to the preamble, then of course those members and senators who vote against that will be free to write a no case which the AEC then sends out, as it normally would with any other referendum.The first part of your question is whether there is any liability for additional funding. There is not any liability, as such, for additional funding. It is a choice of the government of the day as to whether this funding should be employed or not, and the government has made a decision that funding should be used only for the question of the republic. With respect to people voting against the preamble, from what you say, Senator Bolkus, I can take it that the opposition opposes a preamble and will be voting against it. Is that the case?16:37:003408Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I can answer that question both in brief and at a bit of length, and I need to do both, in fact. We have some important concerns with the preamble. Like every other interest group commentator in the country, we think it is a shambles. As a consequence, we will be trying to find ways, through the mechanisms of this parliament and Senate, to develop a preamble which is more in tune with the nation's aspirations and not with the Prime Minister's prejudices. That will be our immediate objective over the next few weeks in this place and through whatever committee might be charged with responsibility for the preamble.I have to say to you that it is not just in here and it is not just in Canberra but it is across the country that people think that the preamble is something that the Prime Minister probably concocted in a bad dream and that they have got to live with it. The other thing that needs to be put on the record is that the Constitutional Convention, charged with the issue of the republic, also deemed—as probably most lawyers in the country would expect them to—that a preamble was an important concomitant to the deliberations of that convention.The purpose of a preamble in legislation is essentially to provide the context through which the legislation can be read and should be interpreted. The view of the Constitutional Convention was that, in a situation where we were going to be confronted with a proposition for Australia to become a republic, there was a need to have a preamble which was appropriate to the new, independent status of the nation. As I say, most lawyers see the purpose of a preamble being to reflect the legislation that the preamble is an antecedent passage to; and it is no different in respect of a constitution and no different in respect of a constitution which changes from a monarchy to a republic.It is quite bizarre that the Prime Minister has taken the view that he can treat the preamble as something separate, that as far as he is concerned there is a need for a new preamble to the Constitution, though that preamble need have nothing to do with Australia moving towards the independent status of a republic. That is why we think the two issues are in many respects interwoven, and that is why it was the view of the Constitutional Convention last year that the two issues were interwoven and needed to be addressed together.Going back to your previous answer, when you said that there would be no money made available and no provisions for the no case for the preamble, but that members of parliament would be able to prepare a no case to be distributed to the electorate in the normal non-referendum mechanisms that are available to this parliament, don't you think it is a bit undemocratic that you are providing resources for your side of parliament, for those who have been long-time supporters of the Prime Minister and his attachment to the monarchy?You are providing money for them to run the no case in respect of the republic, to oppose Australia becoming a republic, but you are not prepared to provide resources for those who are opposed to this shambles of a preamble to pursue their case legitimately in the democratic debate across the nation in the lead-up to this referendum. You are prepared to give money to your long-term mates, but you are not prepared to give money to those who are arguing—very cogently, I must say—against the preamble that the Prime Minister has put together in the darkness of his lodge at Kirribilli.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What! Come on!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Where else did he do it? He found himself up at Anzac Parade, Reid, at the War Memorial and, like a furtive peddler of pornography, he went up to Professor Blainey, gave him a little envelope—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Bolkus, would you like to withdraw that reflection on the Prime Minister, please?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What reflection in particular?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, just withdraw the reflection, and address the chair and not respond to interjections.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I withdraw the reflection. Madam Chair, it is not a democratic course of action to take, in terms of public consultation, to put a document in an envelope, hand it to Professor Blainey, put in his pocket and say to him, `Have a look at this and give me a ring about it later on.' That was the degree of public consultation that took place with respect to the development of this preamble. Senator Natasha Stott Despoja might laugh about it, and the Greens might as well, but that is as far as it went. No-one here was consulted. Les Murray might have been consulted, but we now about that.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Apparently Christopher Pearson got a go.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I do not know whether Christopher Pearson would have got a go. Then again, that reflects probably the earlier comment that I was making, the one that I withdrew. But the extent of the consultation was a blank envelope given to Professor Blainey at the War Memorial, with a whisper saying, `Have a look at this and let me know what you think of it.' That is as far as it got. For a document that has been concocted in secrecy, basically, with a coterie of mates, you are prepared to say, `We are not going to fund the case against it,' whereas you are prepared to allocate public funds in respect of the other important aspect of the referendum. Isn't that undemocratic?16:42:003409Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—No, it isn't. Can I say that the way that the government has devised this is to give Australians the maximum choice. If you were to combine the two questions of the republic and the preamble, you might deprive those people who want to vote no to a republic but yes to the preamble of a combination of votes; so we are saying that there are two distinct issues there. One is a republic and one is a preamble. You might not want the republic but you might want the preamble; you have that choice. You might want both; you have that choice. You might not want both; you still have that choice. In fact, you might want the republic without the preamble, and you can still have that choice because the two questions are separated.As I mentioned earlier, the preamble was never mentioned in the terms of reference for the Constitutional Convention; a republic was. The republic has been the issue here all along. In 1988, there was no public funding for the referendum then and that was an important referendum, but there has been no referendum quite like the question of whether Australia should become a republic. That is such an important question that the government believes it requires public funding for both sides, in order for there to be a full ventilation of debate. Comments about the Prime Minister in the darkness of the Lodge and the pejorative terms that are being used will do neither side any good in the debate of this matter. It certainly has been the desire of all the commentators and those concerned that this debate should be conducted in a mature manner. It certainly is the desire of the government that it be conducted in a mature manner, one which Australians by and large can understand, one which is not full of vindictive language or malice, but one which is based on reason and cogent argument. It is in the interests of the country and in the interests of all concerned that this debate be conducted in that way.16:44:003409Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister, picking up your last point, do you not think the Australian public would be offended by the fact that you are providing resources for one no case and not the other?16:44:003409Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We are providing for one yes case and not the other. It is pretty even-handed. We have provided money for the yes case, and that is not a question of providing funding for the Prime Minister's mates, as you say, Senator Bolkus. There are people in the case whom I am sure the Prime Minister would not count as being in his circle of friends. But I can say to you that in the approach to the yes and no case on the question of whether Australia becomes a republic we are being even-handed. We have divided the money evenly. We are funding both sides to put forward their arguments.16:45:003409Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You are providing money for the no case the Prime Minister supports, but you are not providing money for the no case the Prime Minister does not support. Is that not the most offensive aspect of this funding decision?16:45:003410Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I repeat that we are providing money for the yes case for the republic, and the Prime Minister has stated that that is not a position he holds. So you can twist it as much as you like, but the fact remains that we are providing equal funding for the republic question. One of the groups receiving the funding is those people who do not share the Prime Minister's view. You could not be more even-handed than that.16:46:003410Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I agree with the comments about this debate needing to be mature and considerate.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—You had better sit down then.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Ferguson! You should not be interjecting, least of all when you are not in your place.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—One of the problems with that is that, first of all, it needs to be bipartisan and the government's mirth at the moment and that silly interjection indicate that apparently the leader of the government in this debate was not sincere when he said that. But let me not be distracted by that. The question is about the maturity of the process itself whereby the Prime Minister took unto himself the business of drawing up the preamble. That is quite an untoward reflection on the talent and enormous capability there is of a collective of Australians to do that job better than any single person.I am sure that, if the government had been in the position where, for example, Gough Whitlam, had decided to do this, it would have brought the house down over it. But here we have the Prime Minister, John Howard, doing it, and the government is trying to defend it. But the exercise has failed. That is manifest by the division it has caused in the community and the protest there is about the failure of this preamble from the Prime Minister's office to live up to the expectations of Australians that they would have a preamble which is memorable, which gives rise to pride, and which is something that Australians at school could learn and feel good about. This does not meet that high promise.That being said, where do we go from here? I do not believe the Prime Minister's preamble as it stands is going to be the one put at the referendum, and changes have to be made in the next little while to ensure that there is a different option for the people of Australia. That being the case, I wonder if the government has been discussing this matter and can enlighten this committee as to what course of action is to be taken to give an alternative which is not going to be divisive but is going to be acceptable to the voters.One of those alternatives, if the Prime Minister wants to stick with his proposed preamble, is to allow for an alternative or a number of alternatives to be put forward so that people have a choice. I said earlier that I have read some remarkably good proposed preambles coming from the pens of high school young people in Australia. I think a bringing together of them, for example, would come up with a succinct, poetic and uplifting preamble which many Australians would want to vote for.This was not too difficult with the plebiscite over the national anthem. Three alternatives were put forward there. Not only is the talent available in Australia to come up with an alternative, but already alternatives have been penned which ought to be there so that the critics of the Prime Minister's version have a choice to make. The question is: is the government going to entertain the idea of putting a number of preambles forward so that the people can make a choice? If it is not, or while it is considering that, to what degree is the government determined that the only question to be put to the people of Australia will be the preamble as coming from the Prime Minister a week or two ago?16:50:003410Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The situation with the multiple choice is one which is just not possible with the legislation and the way we conduct a referendum. If you were to have multiple preambles, then you would have to have a question for each one; you would not be able to ask voters to select which one they liked. You could do that by way of a plebiscite or a national poll, as you mention in relation to the national song, but you could not do that by way of referendum.Apart from that, there is another difficulty—that if you gave multiple choices by way of a referendum it would be difficult to achieve the constitutional majority that would be required. If you had three preambles, for instance, and you offered the people of Australia a choice as to which one they preferred you could end up with an even vote of one-third for each preamble. That would make life very difficult indeed, because you would end up with nothing. So in a practical sense you have to put to the people of Australia a preamble requiring the answer yes or no.In relation to the other matters you raise, Senator Brown, the preamble will be the subject of legislation—as will any other amendment to the Constitution—and it will be the subject of the usual course of debate, both in the other place and in this chamber, and it is anticipated that there will be a parliamentary committee process which will closely examine all of those proposed amendments.The government does not for one minute shy away from that process. As Senator Brown knows, having participated in a number of committees, the parliamentary committee process is a very good one indeed. People will be invited to give evidence. They will have the opportunity to give evidence on what they think of the proposed constitutional amendments, and the preamble will form part of that. For people to say that there will be no chance for scrutiny is totally false. There will be parliamentary debate and a committee process whereby people will have the chance to have an input. The government is of the view that that is only appropriate.16:53:003411Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator Ellison for that. It is an important debate and I am sure we are all thinking about it as it goes along. Having taken out the option of a plebiscite, it be comes incumbent upon us, and particularly the government, to come up with a preamble that people are going to vote for, otherwise we will have been in a time and money wasting exercise. We all want to see a preamble that is going to be highly accepted by the Australian people.The government is saying that, if there are to be changes to the Prime Minister's proposal, they ought to come from a committee process and then, presumably, from a debate in the two houses of parliament. This is new ground. The government's thinking here is that the public ought to be ready to feed its thinking on the preamble into a committee and then to follow through the debate consequent upon that committee's deliberations.Has the government given thought to encouraging Australians to be alert to what is going to be a concentrated timetable for this process? If people are able to feed their ideas into a committee—if this is the only option available to us—the parliament will then be prepared for the ensuing debate. I am sure it will be a difficult job for that committee to determine its findings. I would not be surprised if it puts for consideration to the parliament a number of different findings—dissenting reports and so on—for its consideration.At the end of that process, the government is going to bring in here a single preamble—it is going to be a single preamble; we have established that much. To what degree does the government anticipate that the two houses of parliament, debating this and having been charged with the responsibility of coming up with a conclusion, will be able to determine the final words of the preamble? I can see that this is going to be a very tortuous, complicated and potentially unsatisfactory direction to go.I put to the government that the net be thrown wider to people in our community—even to a selection process. A number of people could be selected and they could then get together and come up with a preamble that is an alternative to the Prime Minister's and put that to the committee. That would be listening to what Australians have to say. There needs to be some order in this process. Australians are going to want a preamble that they all feel good about. I, for one, am prepared to forgive some things in order that others are there. There has to be give and take in this. I think Australians, at large, have an enormous repository of goodwill towards us finding a conclusion.The government has to be big enough to throw open the process, with a very short timetable, so that a committee of citizens is able to say, `We have sifted through all of this and here is our recommendation to the parliament.' I am a little worried that the sifting of an enormous input coming to us from the populace is to be left to a parliamentary committee and that, consequent upon that, there is a debate, potentially along political lines, in the two houses of parliament.I put it to the Prime Minister that, beyond Les Murray, he ought to try again with a group of citizens. It is better for us, as a parliament, to make a determination and nominate people. We can, by agreement, get a group of people together to write a preamble. They would know the basic ground rules, which would have come from the Constitutional Convention. It is better for us to get together a collective of wise and tried and true Australians to do this job for us than for us to try to do the job ourselves. I am trying to be very constructive in this, but I think if we leave it to ourselves, as politicians, we are going to come up with something manifestly poorer than if, instead of choosing the words, we choose others to write the words for us.16:58:003412Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I mentioned earlier that there was $4.5 million for a public education campaign. One of the aspects of that campaign will be to let the people of Australia know what the process will be. That of course will involve a question of consultation and public scrutiny via parliamentary debate and a parliamentary committee. We will be advising and informing the people of Australia as to the process in that first phase of public education and information.I believe that will address Senator Brown's concerns about letting people know what is happening and how the whole process is being conducted. Can I say that, in any event, there has been extensive discussion on this preamble. It has been out in the public domain with the draft bills. It is not normal that the government of the day introduces a bill in a draft form and releases it for discussion. We have done that in relation to those other amendments.We have released into the public domain draft legislation, and a preamble, which is the subject of great discussion across this country. You merely have to pick up any newspaper to see the attention that this is getting. So, in the first phase, I would suggest that a good deal of information has already been imparted from the nation's press in relation to what people think.On the question of the preamble itself, no matter what preamble is put to the people, there will be differing views as to the wording. You will never settle upon a wording which will satisfy all Australians. Anyone who thinks that that can be achieved must have the assistance of the Archangel Gabriel, because I can tell you that it is just not feasible. We are putting up a model for the republic which was suggested by the Constitutional Convention and already on the republican side of the debate you have people saying, `This is not the model we should have.' Even if we put up a direct election model, people would still say, `I think you should have the other model.' No matter what is put up in this referendum, there will be differing points of view.I think that the government has a duty to put to the people something to which they can answer yes or no in relation to the republic and yes or no in relation to the preamble. What we have a duty to do is to give due process to this, which we are doing. Public education is the first thing. The second is the parliamentary debate and parliamentary committee scrutiny. Added to that you have the next phase of yes and no arguments in relation to the republic and, finally, the dissemination of the yes and no cases by the AEC. That is sent to every elector in this country. I think that is a pretty extensive process which is going to cover the next eight months or thereabouts. I say to Senator Brown that this is perhaps one of the most expansive processes embarked upon by government since Federation.17:02:003413Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I similarly have concerns about the preamble debate. I am not going to put them on record here because I did that at the second reading stage. I have a series of questions, through the chair, to the minister. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister has invited a number of community groups and of course members of parliament, including the leader of my party, Senator Meg Lees, to make comments and provide feedback to him about the preamble by 30 April. I am not suggesting for a moment that I think that is sufficient: I think it should be much broader. But on that issue, can the minister outline to the chamber what process will take place? Will we see a tabled report in the parliament which will look at the feedback that the Prime Minister received? Will he put a series of recommendations to the parliament? Will he indeed share with us at all the finding or the reports from that community feedback? Can we get some idea of what process will be pursued?17:03:003413Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is a somewhat informal process. The government will take on board all the feedback it gets. At this stage it is not envisaged making a formal report on that. However, that is something that has not been determined at this stage. This process is an informal process of picking up public opinion and feedback. Of course, if there is anything that needs to be implemented by way of some amendment, if there is a flaw in the legislation, the government will take it on board. At this stage it is an informal process and there has been no determination of any report being delivered to the parliament.17:04:003413Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for that response. In relation to the $4.5 million neutral education campaign, I know that Senator Margetts has pursued some questions on this and might pick it up again. In particular, I ask the minister, through the chair: what role do you envisage, if any, for the AEC in that process, and the steering committee to which you referred? How many members will be on the committee and how will they be determined? What will be the selection process for that steering committee to which you referred earlier in the committee stage?17:05:003413Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the last question, that is a matter which is under consideration by the government. I am unable to tell you at this stage. It is being considered. That is the advisory panel: it is not the steering committee. The steering committee has been set up for some time and has representation from the Prime Minister's office. The Attorney-General is on it, as well as myself and other officials. But it is the advisory panel that we are dealing with. That panel will be one that will look at the wording and the substance of the information which will go to the community and of course will play an important role in ensuring the neutrality of that information campaign. The AEC will not have a role in that public education campaign. That is something which is quite different to the yes and no cases which the AEC will be dealing with. The AEC will send out the final yes and no cases, but the public education program will not be run by the AEC.17:06:003413Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I acknowledge my mistake about the advisory panel. That is what I meant to refer to. I am curious about the idea that the AEC would not have a role in that education process. I wonder what that means. Does that mean that we would have a public education campaign along the same lines of, say, the government's promotional work on the Common Youth allowance or, dare I say it, the GST or the new tax system campaign? Are we looking at a $4.5 million taxpayer funded promotional campaign? My initial understanding, when you referred to a neutral education campaign, was that we would see booklets, explanatory information and advertisements on television. This, presumably, was to be organised or monitored in some way by the AEC. Clearly, that does not sound like it will be the case—that it will be signed off on by the advisory panel. Can you give me a sense of the promotional information, even if it is early stages? Are we looking at promotional campaigns that are comparable with other campaigns used to promote government policy or legislative change, for example?17:07:003414Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The campaign dealing with public education will not be espousing one view or the other. The role of the AEC is simply to see that things get out to the electors—that they receive the yes and no cases. The AEC has never been involved in drafting any sort of argument or proposition. The AEC has always been the conduit to the people—that is, the parliamentarians draft the yes and no cases and the AEC is the effective conduit by which that gets to the people of Australia. The AEC has never had a role in actually drafting the argument or in an educational sense—and this is a substantial educational campaign. The AEC has not extended to that. What we would be doing is saying to the people at large, `You have a system—a Westminster style of government—where you have two houses of parliament. You have a Senate and a House of Representatives. You have a Governor-General and a Prime Minister.' We would be outlining simply the system of government that we have.Prior to the Constitutional Convention a booklet was sent out in relation to the system of government, the republic and the Constitutional Convention. I thought that was a reasonable publication. There was a challenge to it in the courts, which was overturned. But I think it was accepted by and large. I do not see how this part of the campaign is controversial. It simply outlines the process—that there will be these bills introduced which will have these amendments; parliamentary scrutiny; the question of the yes and no cases—and the AEC will send it out. That would be the manner of it. As to the question to be put, it will simply outline: `This is the question that you will be getting. Do you want a president appointed by two-thirds of the members of parliament?' That is put in rough terms. Of course, it will be couched in terms much better than I could muster. But that will be the gist of it. It will be a neutral campaign of education.The government thought that it needed to be contrasted by funding two separate cases—yes and no. That will be a bit more adversarial, of course, because one will be espousing one point of view and one the other. I believe, Senator Stott Despoja, that you are on the yes case and will be contributing to that debate.But the AEC really has a completely different role. It is the conduit of information to the people. It also, I might say, will be working overtime to get people on the rolls. It will be working to get young people especially. I was very pleased recently to see, at the orientation day at the University of Western Australia, a stall set up by the AEC to get young people onto the roll, which I think is a very good idea. We have a program with the Victorian government whereby young people who get a drivers licence are contacted by the AEC to make sure they get on the roll. We are exploring this with other states. We are very keen to see that as many people as possible get a chance to vote at the referendum in November.17:10:003414Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I have a couple more brief questions. I understand the point about the AEC. When you talk about an education campaign that educates people about the process of the referendum, clearly that is the role that the AEC often fulfils. You have just articulated some of the examples: mobilising people so that they register to vote and explaining to people the actual mechanics of voting. That is why we have those wonderful ads that have people playing hop scotch or whatever the particular campaign flavour might be. I am not suggesting this is controversial, but when we use words like `education' and `a neutral campaign', obviously it is very hard for anything that is involved in politics to be value neutral. Obviously people are going to be curious about the role of this education campaign.I was just trying to ascertain whether or not it was just educating people about the actual process—what ballot papers you have to fill in, by when you have to get to the vote and at what time you are going to have to register. Clearly that is a role for the AEC. You have actually answered one query in that they will have that role in the campaign. But the actual $4.5 million will be spent differently and for a different education purpose.I have a couple more queries. Firstly, I acknowledge your strong support today on behalf of the government for the preamble. Certainly that is something we have sensed from members on the government side—strong support for the preamble that has been drafted by the Prime Minister. I am wondering if you are able to confirm to the Senate whether that vote in the parliament will be a conscience vote for the government or whether members will be bound to vote for that preamble. Senator Calvert is nodding. My understanding is that it will be a conscience vote, which to me seems a bit odd, considering the strong support we are being told about that seems to be coming from government. Perhaps you could answer or put on record as to why that is a conscience vote?17:13:003415Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Prime Minister has indicated that the questions of whether Australia becomes a republic and whether we amend the Constitution to include this preamble will both be free votes for the members of the coalition. I believe that view is taken because of the rather unusual nature of the question being asked. When I say `unusual', I do not think we have had too many referendums this century where we have talked about Australia becoming a republic. It is the first time since Federation that we have gone to the people of Australia and said, `Do you want to become a republic? Do you want this preamble included in the Constitution?' It is the view of the coalition that this is something which is not just in the realm of policy, which you would determine in relation to health or industrial relations. It is something which is quite different. For those reasons it has been decided that the members of the coalition will have a free vote.17:14:003415Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—This is my final question. We have talked a bit today about the need for broader, more extensive community consultation. We have acknowledged that the Prime Minister has said that he would accept community feedback until 30 April. I am a bit disappointed that we cannot actually suggest that there will be anything more than an informal process—that is, that we will not be seeing anything tabled or any formal feedback from the Prime Minister at the end of those deliberations, ruminations or what have you.Given that this inadequate and minimal level of community consultation and feedback has taken place, does this mean the Prime Minister is going to consider modifications to his draft preamble—his final version of the preamble but I think we should consider it as a draft—so that we will be able to have a constructive and positive debate in this Senate chamber? Are we going to see a Prime Minister who is willing to take on some changes to his draft preamble so that hopefully we can achieve something that more appropriately and honestly reflects the values and visions of the community? If that is not the case, will the government reject any amendments proposed or, in fact, moved successfully in this place; is that the bottom line?17:15:003415Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is very difficult for the government to say what it will do in relation to proposed amendments until we see those proposed amendments. It is just impossible for me to say, `We're not going to accept anything at all,' when we just do not know what people might come up with. That is a question which I cannot answer. As to your comment about tabling the feedback received, I note your concerns, Senator Stott Despoja, and I will take that up with the task force.17:16:003416Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I listened to Senator Ellison's response to my questions relating to the so-called neutral education program, the $4.5 million, where he suggested that it will outline the system of government which we have. In the lead-up to the Constitutional Convention, one of the pieces of information that was funded was something similar—it was entitled `Describe in plain English how the existing constitutional system operates, identifying the arguments for and against change'. I do not know whether Senator Ellison is suggesting we have something different from that. If the government was suggesting this as part of the neutral education program—if it really was an education program—would it include, for instance, information on the elements of a Constitution, what generally goes to make up a Constitution, the issues involved and what parts of the Constitution are being considered for changing at this stage, and so on?I believe that Senator Ellison has actually argued our case by saying that part of this $4.5 million is going to outline the system of government which we have. In the meantime, I have looked at the actual decision in the communique from the Constitutional Convention which stated:That prior to the referendum being put to the people the Government undertake a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum.It does not say `some substitute for a general civics program', which would be best done separate from a referendum. Senator Ellison said he has taken this from the decision of the Constitutional Convention. The communique said `a public education program directed to the constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum'. It does not say, `Explain to the people the system of government which we have.' I suppose some of that might be included. In reality, the decision was asking for people to be given an explan ation of the constitutional issues relevant to the referendum, not `This is our system, isn't it wonderful?' I am really quite shocked that the government is saying that they are prepared to promote the current system of government by putting it out in the public arena—I do not know how you would put it out without promoting it in some way; it is like putting out stuff during an election campaign—explaining what is in the current system of government when, quite frankly, if that is the government's choice then that should be part of their campaign to keep the system as it is. That should be part of the $7½ million and perhaps that extra $4.5 million should be spent on actual community involvement.Perhaps Senator Ellison could also explain whether public education programs will have some interaction involved with them. What does a public education program mean? Does it just consist of giving people information—that is, the old bucket and spade approach of education—or does it involve people being involved in workshops where they can ask questions and have them answered in a real public education program? Are there going to be any publicly funded community consultations that involve people being able to speak and be listened to?17:20:003416Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is quite clear from the communique of the Constitutional Convention that it envisaged that part of the public education program would involve informing Australians as to what the current system is, because it says that the education should particularly involve `constitutional and other issues relevant to the referendum'. The starting point has to be to tell the people of Australia, `This is our current system.' I think Senator Margetts might have misunderstood me when she said that what we would be doing is saying, `This is our current system, and how wonderful it is.' The second part will not form part of the public education program. That will be argued in the yes and no debate. What we will be saying simply to the people of Australia is: `This is the current system.'Before you ask people to change, before you ask people to vote for something new, I think it is only responsible that you tell them what is there in place now. You tell them without saying whether it is bad or good; you simply say in a dispassionate manner that this is the current system of government. I think Australians want to be reminded as to the system of government that we currently have. They are going to say, `There is a suggestion that we should change but I want to know firstly what we are changing. What do we have at the moment?' I think that is a fair question and one which should be fairly answered.The question of whether it is wonderful or not is left to the yes and no committees, and we are funding them $7½ million each. They will both take that up, no doubt, and they have the discretion as to how they will run their campaigns. But I would imagine it would involve them saying, on the one hand, `This is a great system; why change it?' and, on the other hand, `It is a great system but this is better.' Without pre-empting their arguments, that is how I imagine it would run.The question of public education must entail information as to what the current system is. As to whether it involves interaction, certainly there will be dissemination of information. People will be able to make inquiries and will be given information. There will be advertising of some sort. I will certainly take on board your concerns, Senator Margetts, about the question of workshops, but there has been no decision as yet that that will be part of the campaign.17:23:003417Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I ask the minister: would it not therefore be appropriate, if this is a neutral information campaign, to also give some neutral information to the community—as part of this $4.5 million—about republics? If it is not about promoting and if it is about a neutral campaign, should not part of this $4.5 million be neutral information about republics?17:23:003417Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Certainly one aspect of it will be to advise the people of Australia as to the question that will be put to them in November, and that is the question of whether Australia becomes a republic. The question of republics in general is perhaps one which would invite a good deal of subjective assessment, and I would suggest to Senator Margetts that she would be treading on pretty dangerous territory in looking at the different republics across the world. From an education and information point of view, I think if you were to pick one republic and not another you would have complaint. To go through all of them and provide a commentary on the sorts of republics you could have could well confuse people.Apart from the preamble, people will be asked two questions in November. The question on the republic will be: `Do you want Australia to become a republic in this form?' That will be only one question, which will be answered yes or no. It will not be: `Do you want one like Germany?', `Do you want one like America?' or `Do you want a South American model?' It will not be that at all. It will just be putting the one question to them, and I think it is very important that the people of Australia, in this public education phase, are reminded of what that question will be and what it entails.17:25:003417Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister, who has narrowed it down to exactly the point I am about to make. I am now suggesting to the minister that information about the model that is being proposed is therefore appropriate in this neutral education campaign. I may not think it is a great model, but is it envisaged that this neutral education campaign will not just be about the system of government we have? Will there be information and a clear explanation about the model that is being proposed, without involving a yes or no?17:26:003417Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Excuse my exasperation, but I mentioned earlier that there were three aspects: (1) the current system, (2) the proposed model—that is, the model that is to be put to the people, and (3) the procedure. It has always been the case that we would have the model being part of that public education program. We will also have the procedure; that is, there will be a referendum. It will be put to you only after legislation has been passed. This legislation will have to be debated in the houses of parliament, and it will be the subject of scrutiny via a parliamentary committee. So we will have the current system, the proposed model and the procedure by which the referendum will be conducted. This is, of course, quite separate to the question of how you mark your ballot paper. That is something for the AEC and is not part of the public education program that I am talking about. That will be dealt with quite separately by the AEC.17:27:003418Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I can understand Senator Margetts's concerns about this. We are talking about a government that will give $7½ million to each side of the campaign but will then spend $4½ million extra on essentially propping up, promoting and making the public more aware of, in their own way, the current system. So, at the end of the day, you will have $12 million spent putting forward and promoting the status quo and $7½ million spent on the other side of the case. That is something that we are concerned about, particularly since the government's interest in promoting the current constitutional system is a newborn one.When I was minister for immigration not all that long ago, I started a program of ensuring that new citizens got a copy of the Australian Constitution. It did not cost us much, but it was something which I felt was an important bit of information for people to receive on becoming citizens. One of the first things the government did on taking office was to stop that program. So you have to be a bit cynical about the government's motivations here, and it is a cynicism that I think the community has as well.If you are going to spend $4½ million on basically explaining, as you say, in a neutral way—but promoting is probably the best way of putting it—the current constitutional system, that of course will have, and you know it will have, the impact of basically shoring up support for, through better understanding, the current system.I would like to ask you some questions about this neutral campaign, Minister. Can you tell us when it will run? Will it run at the same time as the referendum campaign, or is it intended to run sometime earlier than November this year? Has a decision been taken as to whether and when it will start?17:29:003418Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Firstly, dealing with the question of the $4.5 million education campaign being one which is to prop up the current system, I totally reject that. It will be an unbiased campaign. Senator Bolkus said that it is aimed at shoring up support for the current system by making people better understand the current system. God forbid that we would ever have the people of Australia better understanding the current system! I would have thought it highly desirable that the people of Australia understand fully their own system. I think, quite frankly, it is a highly desirable goal, and it is one which the government aspires to.If you believe the system should be changed, then obviously you believe there are flaws in the current system and, if there are those flaws, no doubt they will be self-evident in that public education campaign and people will pick it up. This campaign is not designed one way or another to promote a yes or no position. It is simply putting the Australian people in the picture, and that is a fair enough proposal.In relation to the timetable, you have heard mention made that we are looking for feedback on the draft bills by the end of April. We would be looking to introduce the legislation in May and with the introduction of the legislation there would be a low-level aspect of the public education campaign. That would grow, and in September I would imagine it would be at its peak. During the passage of the bills from the other place to the Senate, no doubt there will be committee scrutiny. A reference to a joint parliamentary committee is one that has been anticipated so that both houses are involved. The bills would then be back in the Senate in August for debate. We would then look to the normal process of the AEC fulfilling its requirements of sending out yes and no cases in the interim period between then and the referendum.At that stage we would be looking at September-October for the more robust part of the campaign—where the yes and no cases most probably would be in full flight with their respective campaigns. Finally, the voters of Australia would receive the yes and no case from the AEC before they vote in November. That is a rough timetable, as best we can describe it, but it will require cooperation from people. I ask you to bear that in mind, because we aim to have this referendum in November—some eight months away—and those procedures have to be gone through before we arrive at the referendum.17:32:003419Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I am sure you did not misunderstand me earlier on, and I think it is important that Australians understand their Constitution. That is why I took the decision to make it available and to present it to new citizens. I think the promotion of a greater understanding of the Constitution should be part of civics education rather than being under the guise of a campaign here.You may have misunderstood my question. I am concerned about this neutral campaign. You mention that it will run at a low level up to September, but I would like to know when it will actually run—when it will start. If it were at a low level, when would the low level finish, what would constitute the low level, and when would it go into a higher level?17:33:003419Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We would envisage in the first instance that the dissemination of literature would be roughly at the same time as the introduction of the bills. I said that would be in May. That is relatively low level. You then build it up, because we have limited funds available. The other thing is that you do not want to hit the peak of information at too early a point, because there is a school of thought that perhaps it is best to reach the peak closer to the referendum rather than months out from the referendum.The education process is very important to help people make up their minds. If you were to have a flurry of education, activity, advertising and the like now, and then it dropped off, you might well find that that disadvantages people. It is much better to have a campaign which runs for a period of time right up to the referendum, with perhaps a peak of information much closer to the referendum, because I think it is fair to say that people will turn their minds more to the referendum when the time arrives.I can assure you that the majority of Australians—men and women in their daily lives out there—are not thinking constantly about the republic at the moment. They have a lot of other things on their plates to think about, and it is my bet that the majority of Australians will look at this closer to the event. I am not saying that people will not be looking at it now, but I am saying that if you were to run a campaign with education information now, you could well miss the boat because you would miss those people who will only turn their minds to the referendum and what it all means much closer to the event. I think it is commonsense that you increase the output of the campaign much closer to the referendum.It is what we have learnt as political parties in campaigning for any manner of things—that you build it up until the day of reckoning when people make a decision. It is commonsense. If you believe we should spend the $4.5 million now—use it all up next week and have nothing thereafter—I think people would say that is foolish. A sensible approach is to have an information campaign which runs over months and then reaches its peak of output closer to the referendum.17:36:003419Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This is an outrage. You are fiddling the books to apply $12 million to those on the no side or associated with it. You are talking about a campaign. We started with a neutral educative program and now it has become a campaign, Minister.Senator Ellison interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—No, you just referred to it as a campaign. Let us try to get some details. I have to say to you that my family is not in town this week, so I can spend all night on this. Let us try to get some details on this. You said that in the first part, starting in May, you will be talking about literature. What literature are we talking about and to whom will it be targeted? When will that first part of the campaign, the literature part, stop?17:37:003420Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would envisage that you would have the literature side of the campaign existing throughout the intervening period. It stands to reason that, if you have a publication which is simple to read and easily understood, you would have it available for all Australians during the intervening period. So that is pretty clear.I also correct you, Senator Bolkus, on one thing. I have referred to this as a public education campaign. The word `campaign' is no recent invention on my part nor on the part of the task force. It is something which is a campaign; it is in a campaign form to educate people, to inform them. The word `campaign' has no sinister connotation about it. It is a campaign to inform and educate. I have mentioned that it will be neutral, and it will be.The question of the sorts of advertising that are employed, be it electronic or print, is another aspect of the information campaign. The wording has not yet been settled. Our advisory panel, which is yet to be set up, will advise the task force to ensure that we do get it right. Really, to say what form it will take in detail in the future would be presumptuous of me indeed because we will be seeking the advice of this panel, so I cannot give you the detail of it. If I did that, it would be outrageous. You do not have a dog and bark yourself. The fact is that we will have an advisory panel and we will take advice from it in relation to format, wording and substance. So I cannot give you that detail at this point in time but, as soon as we are able, it will be made public.I reject comprehensively the question of this being an attempt to fiddle the books. It is an open, transparent process. It is one which involves informing people, as only we should do, in the lead-up to a referendum—a very important one. When it comes to the yes and the no cases, we have funded them equally. There are some people who might say that including an explanation of the proposed model is perhaps giving an advantage to the republicans. That is something which could be argued. So your argument that this is a one- sided attempt to promote the current system falls to the ground because we will also be telling people what the proposed model entails—the better the understanding, the better the situation. I think everyone agrees, Senator Bolkus, that increased understanding in this situation can only benefit the country.17:40:003420Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister, can you tell us who is on the task force?17:40:003420Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I mentioned earlier that the Attorney-General is on the task force; he is the chair of it. I am on it. There is representation from the Prime Minister's office and, from time to time, we have representation from the AEC. We have officials who work for the task force who have input, officials from the Attorney-General's Department and there is also staff representation, not on the task force but assisting the task force, from the Attorney-General's office and from my office.17:41:003420Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You said, `Officials who work for the task force', can you tell us who they are?17:41:003420Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am just having that list drawn up. I will give it to you shortly. Perhaps there is something else you might like to take up with me in the meantime?17:41:003420Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can we have the names of the representative from the AEC, the officials from the Attorney-General's Department and the representatives from the Prime Minister's office, your office and the Attorney-General's office?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Minister, would it help to take a question from Senator Margetts?9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Yes.17:42:003420Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would certainly be very interested to know who is on these steering committees or task forces. To assist the committee, I have just looked up in the Macquarie Dictionary the meaning of the word `campaign'. It says:. . . 1. the military operations of an army in the field during one season or enterprise. 2. any course of aggressive activities for some special purpose: a sales campaign . 3. the competition by rival political candidates and organisations for public office . . . It does not say anything about `neutral'. So the reality is that a campaign means selling something. You are selling something, promoting something—putting a viewpoint. To me, a neutral campaign seems to cancel itself out.17:43:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I think that definition fits entirely what I have been saying. It is a special purpose which is pursued aggressively. The special purpose here is to inform the people of Australia. If we are regarded as doing it somewhat aggressively then perhaps I should apologise, but I can tell you that our resolution is none the less. Our special purpose is to provide a neutral education and information campaign or program for the people of Australia. If you want us to use the word `program', Senator Margetts, maybe that will make you feel happier. But it is, and will be, pursued with vigour, and the special purpose is to inform the people of Australia.17:43:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister, you said there would be an advisory panel set up but, firstly, can you tell us whether the task force was set up by cabinet or just by the Prime Minister?17:44:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that the Prime Minister set up the task force, although I was not originally a member as I was not the Special Minister of State in the first instance.17:44:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—With regard to the advisory panel that you say will be constituted, has a decision been taken as to who or what interest groups might find themselves on that advisory panel?17:44:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is a matter which is, at this very moment, under consideration by the government. That information will be released in the near future. 17:44:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—There has obviously been some consideration given to the actual composition of the campaign. You mentioned literature, which will run from May to November. Can you tell us what form this literature is expected to take?17:45:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Again, no. As I said earlier, we would need the advice of the advisory panel and that is something that we will distil at a later point. It would be presumptuous of me to say what form it would take.17:45:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I am not referring to the actual content; I am referring to whether it is going to be direct mail, whether it is going to be a booklet and whether it is going to be distributed in schools and workplaces. Has consideration been given as to which of those sorts of documents might be used by the campaign?17:45:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would be keen to hear the views of the advisory panel in relation to that before I made a final decision. Therefore, that is a question I cannot answer at this stage.17:46:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Has the government given any consideration to what views it would put to the advisory panel as to what the literature should be? If you have not made any such decision, have you given any consideration to what sort of documentation should be promoted through this campaign?17:46:003421Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is a matter which is still under consideration. There has been no final determination in relation to that.17:46:003421Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Normally at an early stage of a campaign there is an in-principle or interim decision or framework of a campaign worked out and a proportion of money allocated to the electronic part of the campaign as opposed to the literature side. Have you given any consideration as to how much of that $4.5 million will be spent on electronic as opposed to literature and as opposed to research?17:47:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—No, that decision has not yet been made. That will be considered in due course.17:47:003422Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Given that you say that this information may start going out in May, and given that it is now the end of March, there is only one month in the interim. I would think that even to print information of that scale to distribute to the people of Australia or to find out ways of putting it out would take some time. How long would it take to print information for all households in Australia if you did choose direct mail? It beggars belief that with one month before this education campaign is due to start we actually have no idea of the format it is going to take or what is going to be in it.17:48:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I did not say this would commence precisely on 1 May. I said it would be in the month of May and that gives you some latitude. The whole extent of the information, how it is disseminated and its form will not be decided necessarily by the beginning of May. In the first instance there may well be a booklet, a letter or something else. That will only be a first step and one which, I would have thought, we have more than enough time to distil. When one looks at when the legislation might be introduced into the parliament, that gives us in excess of a month to get that together. I do not see that, on day one, you would rush out and send your booklet to everyone in the country. It may well be that we adopt a different procedure after advice from the advisory panel and that we do it in a more step-by-step fashion.17:49:003422Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can you tell the Senate whether any PR agencies, advertising agencies or research agencies have been contacted in any way by the government in respect of this campaign?17:49:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government has commissioned Newspoll to do research on this matter and we are awaiting the final results of that.17:50:003422Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What has the government asked Newspoll to find out?17:50:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the precise detail I will have to take that on notice.17:50:003422Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think we should also ask you to take on notice when Newspoll was asked and when you expect the answers. Are you saying that Newspoll is the only agency of those general groups that I mentioned that has been approached by the government?17:50:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am advised that that is the only one that we have used, but I will double-check and make sure that is the case.17:50:003422Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—With regard to Newspoll, without having to go into the precise detail, can the minister tell the committee whether Newspoll will be asking questions about the preamble?17:51:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will have to take that one on notice. As I understand it, it was commissioned in the first instance to look at general issues in relation to the republic and people's understanding of the issue and the current system. There is more detail to it than that and I will have to take that on notice.17:51:003422Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If the minister could get that information while the committee is sitting, that would be very helpful. I am very interested in that and I am sure other committee members are too. I think that could be done without ruining the effect of the Newspoll questioning.17:52:003422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have just been advised that it did not include anything to do with the preamble. I think that answers your question.17:52:003423Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Has that Newspoll actually taken place already?17:52:003423Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that it is still under way and it has not finished as yet.17:52:003423Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Will the minister give a commitment that as soon as the results are available they will be made public?17:52:003423Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise the Senate that it is the intention of the referendum task force or steering committee to make that research available to the yes and no committees to do with as they will in their respective campaigns.17:53:003423Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Not good enough. Here we are talking about the expenditure of public money. I would like to know, first of all, from what budget the Newspoll comes, because the funding and so on has not gone through yet. From what budget does the Newspoll come, and why will we not see not just the results but what questions were asked and what kind of sample was used? Are you suggesting that whatever committees in whatever process comes about will have the knowledge or ownership of that information and that we as the parliament will not get to see what you have asked and the answers unless those committees choose to give them out? Is that what you are suggesting?17:54:003423Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I reiterate that the research will be made available and be public. It won't just be to the yes and no committees; it will be public. The next thing is the question of what was asked and the result. That normally is what is revealed in relation to research. What is the use of knowing that 80 per cent of people thought that there should not be a republic when you do not know what is asked? I would envisage that you would get all that research and, if you want a copy of it, you can have it. Primarily it is something which we as a government are relying on so that we can cater for the needs of the Australian people in informing them. Secondly, we thought it might be of use to the yes and no committees in their arguments. But it is also freely available. There is no concealment of this. Can I also tell you that it comes out of the $4.5 million.If we are going to have an education campaign, it would be foolish not to have some sort of research as to what people know or do not know. Once you know that, you can meet the needs of the people. So the research will be made public and our education campaign will be assisted greatly by this research. But we will also be providing it to the yes and no cases so that it may assist them in their campaigns.17:55:003423Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to ask the minister what other money has been spent out of the $4.5 million and for what purposes. Could he give the committee a breakdown on that? Secondly, has money from there or anywhere else been spent on a poll of people's opinions on the preamble? With the breakdown of where moneys from the $4.5 million are going, could the minister say how much the Newspoll survey is to cost?17:56:003423Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that last question on notice. I am not aware of any other funds being expended from the $4.5 million, but I will take that on notice and give you those details. In relation to other polls, I am not aware of any other polling being done for this specific purpose by the government. I think the Centenary of Federation did some polling of its own accord in relation to what people understood in relation to the current system of government and the question of a republic, but that certainly was nothing that I was involved with. With respect to the preamble, there has not being any research done on the preamble. Of course, this was commenced prior to the release of the preamble by the Prime Minister; it pre-dated that.17:57:003423Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—With respect to that Newspoll survey, who in fact framed the questions to be asked? Was the government or any member or officer of the government involved in the formulation of the Newspoll questions? Were any instructions or any requests given from the government to Newspoll in terms of the questions to be asked?17:57:003424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The task force has had the preliminary task of drafting the question, and the quantitative part is yet to be determined. That is about where we are at. If there is any further detail, I will have to take that on notice.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You said `drafting the question'. I presume there is more than one.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—There are several.17:58:003424Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can you give us a guarantee that this neutral campaign will not cost more than $4.5 million?17:58:003424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is all that has been allocated to it, and I cannot see the Treasurer being munificent in relation to this. It is something that we have to cut our cloth by.17:58:003424Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You said that no agency other than Newspoll had been approached. I asked about PR, advertising and research. Can you tell me whether you have actually settled on a list of any such agency or individual who will be approached for the purposes of this campaign?17:59:003424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There was a selective tendering process in relation to Newspoll. In relation to any advertising campaign, it will go through the normal government processes, but it has not yet been determined whether we will be using an advertising agency. Again, that is something which will depend on the sort of advice we get from the advisory panel.17:59:003424Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In addition to the other bits of specific information that Senator Brown has asked for, perhaps Senator Ellison could tell us how many people are being polled, what kind of breadth of polling is involved here. Obviously, the information will become public. I guess we want some assurances that the questions and answers on the several questions—whatever they are—will be available in a complete document and about how many people will be polled and the breadth of the poll.18:00:003424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am advised that polling is taking place across all states across the country.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Tasmania as well?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—That was a state last time I looked at the federation, Senator Bolkus.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Not if you read the preamble.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—As for the question of the number of people being polled, I understand that involves some 2½ thousand, which is a fairly standard amount to be polled in relation to an issue across the country.18:00:003424Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You mentioned earlier on that the low level campaign would start in May and that September-October would see a more robust part of the campaign. What do you envisage being the component parts of this more robust part of the campaign?18:01:003424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It could possibly involve advertising on radio or television. You do not get much television for $4½ million. That is a decision which will have to be made at the time.Perhaps if I could put it this way, Senator Bolkus: a lot does depend on the advice we get from the advisory panel. If we find that we have a literature campaign which is doing very well, there might not be the need to increase awareness through electronic media, but that is a decision which will have to be made at the time. Certainly, though, any electronic media now would be wasted because the effect of that would soon be forgotten in months to come. If you were to use electronic media, it would be best used closer to the time.18:02:003424Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Will the so-called neutral campaign involve a degree of bipartisanship in the development of such a campaign, to involve other parties in the parliament?18:02:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is not seen as a situation involving other parties because the advisory panel, we believe, will fulfil that role. It will comprise people who will be highly qualified, and that will fulfil the role. If you involve other parties, perhaps you are cutting across the yes and no cases. We think we have amply covered that with the people we have chosen for the yes case, on the one hand, and the no case, on the other. So we really do not see that there is a need to have the formal process that you mentioned which would have that involvement of all parties. The advisory panel will fulfil that.18:03:003425Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—You were asked earlier for information about the names of the officials involved in the task force. Do we have those?18:03:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise the Senate that the Attorney-General is the chairman of the group and then there is me as the other ministerial member. We have Mr Tony Nutt and Ms Catherine Murphy from the Prime Minister's office. From the Attorney-General's office we have Mr Nick Grono and Simone Burford and from my office we have the Chief of Staff, Mr Alastair Kinloch. The officials who are assisting are Mr Henry Burmester, Chief General Counsel from Attorney-General's; Mr Robert Orr, Deputy General Counsel; Mr Ian Govey and Ms Sandra Power.On the actual referendum task force secretariat, if you like, we have Mr John Doherty, who is the convenor; Mr Jim Faulkner; Ms Wendy Southern; Nicholas Scofield; David Lewis; from Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Alan Henderson; and from the AEC we have officials as required. That has included Mr Bill Gray, the Commissioner, who has attended, and Mr Paul Dacey, but that is on an as-required basis. Should the need arise for any other departments to have input, we would have representation from them.18:05:003425Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Have you sought any advice from your or any other department on the framework of the campaign or has any advice been given to you on the framework for such a campaign over the next few months?18:05:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Yes, there has. The task force officials have advised us from time to time as to possibilities, but that is all under consideration. Nothing final has been determined. For instance, the timetable that I have mentioned to you was something that the task force settled upon, and that was after advice. That timetable is part of the framework of the campaign, but there are still other aspects which have to be determined.18:06:003425Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Has Mr Textor been involved in any way in this process so far?18:06:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—He has not.18:06:003425Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The legislation provides for the ballot papers to be of a different colour chosen by the Electoral Commissioner. Has this happened yet?18:06:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is under consideration. If your next question is to ask me what criteria—or what colours—he will be using, I suggest you direct your question to the Commissioner of the AEC, who will be making that decision.18:06:003425Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have one last question on Newspoll for the minister. My recollection is that Newspoll tends to come up with results that are shown state by state, excluding Tasmania—and I certainly stand to be corrected on that. I just wonder if the poll on this occasion is being done with the demographics of the average Australian in mind or whether it is actually being done to find out what people in different states and territories think. They are quite different things.18:07:003425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can say to Senator Brown that we certainly want to know the statistics on a state by state basis. That is something that we will be getting, including for the territories and, of course, Tasmania. That is important.18:07:003426Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is interesting, Chair, because it raises the question of the potential for different levels of campaigning in different states and territories, as a result of the outcome of that poll. I wonder if the government has thought down the line as to what it has in mind there. Is it going to concentrate effort in New South Wales or Tasmania or Western Australia according to the outcome of that poll? And is it therefore looking for the degree of awareness in different states as against each other? If so, why? Is it looking with a view to the constitutional requirement that you have to win in a number of states as well as overall? If not, what were the parameters that the government set in the tendering process, which Newspoll has won, to get this information?18:09:003426Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Perhaps I can put it this way. At the outset, let me make it clear that this polling is in no way designed to achieve any result insofar as the referendum on the republic goes. It is not designed to achieve a majority constitution or otherwise. It is looking at what people know about the current system. `Do you know what the constitution is? Do you know what the Senate is? Do you know what the House of Representatives is?'—questions which go to people's knowledge of the current system.It may be helpful on a state by state basis to know what the level of understanding is. It may be that some states differ from others. It would certainly be the intention of the Commonwealth government that there be a uniform understanding of the current system, the proposed model and the procedure across Australia and that there be no variation from one state to another. It may well be helpful, of course, to the yes and the no cases, as to where certain understandings lie or do not lie. But that is up to them. If they want to campaign in one state or another, that is up to them. The government wants to achieve a uniform result, as much as is possible, across the country. There may be differing factors in different states which might need to be addressed: who knows? I do not know what the results will reveal. Certainly, you might have in one state a level of understanding which is quite different from that in another, although I would be surprised: I would imagine that you would find it was pretty uniform across the country—but I stand to be corrected.There is certainly no desire, Senator Brown, to use that information as a means of achieving some sort of majority at the referendum. It is for other people to embark upon the yes and no cases, not the government. I think it is helpful to know where the understandings and misunderstandings lie, and that is why this research is so important; and making it public will assist everyone.18:11:003426Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I understand that. I brought up my previous question because Newspoll usually does not recognise Tasmania. It prints results for states right across the country but not for Tasmania. I do not know whether Newspoll does not know that Tasmania is part of the Commonwealth, or whether people are frightened of plane or ferry travel, but Newspoll regularly gives us results for issues right across the country but leaves out one of the founding states.I am pleased to hear that on this occasion you will be giving results for Tasmania. There may be a problem there: if the polling is done on a population basis, Tasmania, with a smaller populace, will have fewer people being interviewed and therefore the results may not be quite as reliable. But the intent of this poll is obviously a good one. I can tell you that Tasmanians will be interested to see what the results are. I would predict at the outset that Tasmanians are going to come out tops in this poll because, with its different electoral system, people down there are very literate on political and constitutional matters; but let us see.I want to come back to the question of the request by the Constitutional Convention that, in the event of a republic being established consequent upon these elections, there be another Constitutional Convention to look at other matters—including the rights and responsibilities of Australians, the environment, indigenous peoples' recognition, and so on—in the Constitution itself. I would remind the committee that the request to the convention that another convention follow the establishment of a republic was essential to that convention coming to an agreement at all. We would not be here without that condition having been agreed upon. The government was quite obviously involved in that commitment being made.The opposition today has indicated that it stands by that commitment and has supported the amendment that Senator Margetts moved earlier. But, as I recollect, the government said that it did not support that amendment, even though the amendment was carried. I am wanting to know why the government did not support that amendment and whether this is an indication of breach of faith from its position in the Constitutional Convention.18:14:003427Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Prime Minister never undertook to have this further convention as suggested by the Constitutional Convention. The Prime Minister did undertake that there would be a referendum and that the question of Australia becoming a republic would be put. He said that that was on the condition of us being re-elected. But he did not go any further to give any undertaking in relation to this convention. I point out that if the republic gets up it will come into play in 2001. This parliament will come to an end some time, no doubt, in 2001—maybe 2002, and for us to be making decisions now as to what future parliaments should be doing is unwise. I also think it is unwise for us to be making commitments at this stage before we know the result of the referendum. I think it is something which can be canvassed adequately enough once the referendum has been dealt with when we know which way Australia is heading.18:16:003427Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I cannot accept that. The government was very heavily represented through its nominees at the Constitutional Convention, and we all know that an enormous amount of goodwill and good faith was required, particularly in the final days of that convention, to get the result that we are now dealing with in this Senate. What the minister is indicating is that the Prime Minister made no commitment as to what the convention would come up with—and I can understand that. But inherent in the very tough negotiations within that convention was the belief that government representatives there would bring back the strength of feeling that was required and the commitment made by people who otherwise would not have allowed the outcome to be the way it was that there would be another convention down the line.If I can refresh the Senate's mind on this, there was a very strong feeling at the Constitutional Convention that it ought to go much further than just changing the section of the Constitution which would bring in a president. There was a feeling that there should be major changes to the Constitution to bring it into line with constitutions enjoyed by other countries and to bring it into line with the thinking of Australia at the end of the 20th century. At the end, there was only a resolution of this matter by those people who wanted far greater changes to the Constitution by a commitment from those who did not want those changes that this would be recommended as being dealt with by a consequent Constitutional Convention.I do not think the matter is resolved by the Prime Minister saying he is not interested in it or he is not in favour of it. He placed a great deal of power, trust, deliberation and responsibility on that convention. These things are two-way. It is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to show good faith with the outcome of that convention and to understand that outcomes from Constitutional Conventions are rarely easy and that the points of view expressed by a convention should be taken seriously. Is the Prime Minister taking those things seriously? If the Prime Minister is making the decision here and not the government, that in itself is a remarkable factor, because the Prime Minister is not the fount of all wisdom when it comes to things constitutional for this country.Here we have a clear request from a Constitutional Convention made up of people right across the country but with a large number of them appointed by the government—that is, the Prime Minister. The inference I get from what the minister says is that the Prime Minister does not give a damn about that. That is not good enough. The convention made a very specific request that there be another convention post-referendum. That was an essential part of the outcome. You cannot divorce the other outcomes from that. The Prime Minister cannot be selective about this—at least he cannot be selective without him and the government giving good reasoning back to those people who worked so hard in the convention and had, I think, enormous public participation in their representation at that convention,This is not a minor matter. It is hugely important. It is going to even shape the way in which some participants of that convention who are opinion makers take a role in trying to get this nation to a consensus by referendum time—at least trying to get a referendum outcome that is dinkum. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say, `Oh well, I've got the components I want. The decision by that convention to seek another convention after these referendums can go hang.' I would like to hear from the minister that that is not the situation—that the government is serious about taking all the recommendations of the convention. If it has dropped the one about there being another convention to look at further changes to the Constitution, then it ought to provide this Senate, the people who were at that convention and the people of Australia with a good explanation.18:21:003428Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thought it would be appropriate to remind the minister of those members of the government who voted for the motion at the Constitutional Convention to which Senator Margetts and Senator Brown have referred. They included Kevin Andrews, Treasurer Peter Costello, Mrs Chris Gallus, Minister Robert Hill, Minister Jocelyn Newman, and the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. So it is quite a diverse bunch of government members of parliament, I would suggest. In addition, Rob Borbidge, Chief Minister Kate Carnell, Peter Collins, Jeff Kennett, John Olsen and Shane Stone voted for the motion—certainly reflecting a broad range of opinion if you read that in conjunction with the list of the many other delegates.I think it would be quite interesting to find out why those members of the government have opposed the amendments. Certainly those ministers represented in this chamber—that is, Senator Newman and Senator Hill—should put on record why they have blatantly contradicted a position that they took just over a year ago. I think it is a little sad. I suggest that the rationale that they do not want to commit future governments to certain positions is a little spurious, given that that is what we do all of the time in this place. I would have thought implementing a new taxation system was essentially committing a new government to a different taxation process. That is our job, of course.It reflects adversely on those members that they took a stance at the Constitutional Convention that was in line with a majority of delegates; they supported a very good motion, and amended to be even more valuable, and yet these members—ministers, no less—have completely undermined and contradicted the position that they took a year or so ago. That is very sad. I ask that the minister asks his colleagues, specifically his colleagues in this place, and certainly any of those frontbench members to whom I referred, to outline their change of opinion.Given that on a number of other areas to do with the bills to alter the Constitution it is mooted that they will be free votes, I wonder why that vote was not a free vote for members in this place.Senator Margetts interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Indeed, I accept that interjection, and maybe that is why we did not go to a division.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Senator Stott Despoja, the rest of us did not hear that interjection. If you could share it with us, we would appreciate that. Certainly, Hansard would.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator Margetts interjected that perhaps that is why we did not go to a division. I hope I did not misrepresent her interjection. I do not mean to be facetious about this issue.When these members went to the Constitutional Convention they were entrusted with a degree of responsibility and, I think, privilege. Those of us who attended in an appointed capacity were entrusted with a great deal of responsibility and faith by our parties, the parliament and the community. I think it is pretty outrageous that those people have just completely contradicted a position that they held previously. No wonder people are cynical about politicians. At a minimum, I would expect those ministers to explain their position and put on the record their change of heart. I certainly suggest that the minister draw the questioning in this place to the attention of those honourable members in both houses, because the least that we deserve is an explanation.18:26:003429Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is still opportunity for the government to show that the issues of a republic and a constitution involve a conscience vote. I have circulated an amendment to the motion that the report of the committee be adopted. I will be speaking to that in a while but I will not have a chance to question the minister at that stage. When we get to the point of asking the public of Australia—hopefully, by the next election they will have the chance to put it in a plebiscite—whether they want to move towards a republic, the basic question that a lot of people have expressed an interest in, will your members have a conscience vote on that question?18:27:003429Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I understand it, Senator Margetts is wanting know, if we get to a plebiscite, whether there will be a free vote. We have a free vote in relation to the republic and the preamble. What other free vote were you concerned about? 18:28:003429Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I will try to speak more slowly. There is an amendment circulated in my name to which I will speak when we get to the point in this debate that the report of the committee be adopted. Because I will not have an opportunity then of asking questions of the minister, I am asking the question now, considering that the minister said that these are issues upon which his party has a free vote. Will the members of the coalition have a free vote on the question that I will be putting tonight—that is, if the referendum fails, will the community of Australia have a chance to express their views one way or the other, in a plebiscite, as to whether they want to advance to a republic? That is a very clear question.My amendment is seeking to give people another chance, if this inadequately put together proposal fails. If it fails, will the coalition side of politics give its members the chance to vote freely on this issue? This is not a mechanical issue. This is about whether the people of Australia will have a chance—at the next election, so it is not binding a future government—to express in a plebiscite whether they wish to move towards a republic.18:29:003429Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This question does not involve whether or not we accept this preamble or whether or not Australia becomes a republic. Therefore, it will not be a free vote. It is purely a procedural aspect, which is government policy. It was the government's policy that we would have a referendum, that we would have bills that would put in place that referendum and amendments. Those decisions were policy. The question of whether we have a republic is a different story. That is a free vote.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.3429Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.19:31:003430Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:At the end of the motion, add:"and if the referendum proposal for a republic in the form agreed to at the 1998 Constitutional Convention is not successful, the Senate calls on the Government to hold a plebiscite, coincident with the next Federal Election, on the question, `Should Australia become a republic?'".I indicated to the chamber that I would be moving an amendment at this stage. The previous amendment to the motion that the bill be read a second time did not pre-empt any decision; nor does this amendment. It said `if' something happened. This amendment simply says, `If the referendum proposal for a republic in the form agreed to is not successful.' There are a number of reasons why a particular model for a republic might not gain acceptance by the majority of Australians in the majority of states. The reasons could be that the proposal has been shoddily put together, that at this stage it has not been properly explained, that people are taking particular exception to the choice of president, that some people believe that a proper process should have taken place in the first place and that Australia deserves better.Regarding the range of reasons that people might not jump at the very first model that is thrown at them, like a pile of crumbs—I am not talking about the people: I am talking about the model—it might be that Australians are cautious at the first vote. Some people will say, `This is the only chance that you'll get.' That is a total nonsense, because we know it is likely that if we sit on our hands and do nothing for the next 10 years we will be a republic without a head of state. In reality, there could be no head of state because Britain may have changed before us. It is a nonsense to suggest that, if we do not do anything at this stage or in the foreseeable future, we will never become a republic. It is more reasonable to suggest that some people in Australia might choose carefully about whatever model they so desire and may express an opinion in this current referenda which says, in effect, `not this model'.However, I believe those people have a right to indicate in the not too distant future whether what they are saying is `not this model yet' or `republic but'. If what they are saying is `a republic but not this one', I believe they should have a chance to make that opinion known. I would think there would be some people within the coalition ranks who would be rather concerned if it were a matter of this or nothing being proposed. They may well think that a republic in general is something Australia should be moving towards and that it is unrealistic to suggest that the very first proposal that is thrown to the Australian community should be jumped on no matter what.I believe that all senators should be able to consider this matter on its merits. If that does not happen, I would have to wonder why. I would like to think that people from the Labor Party would have a chance to vote on this issue on its merits. It is one of those cases where, if I understand it correctly, there is no specific policy. I stand to be corrected on that. When it is not one of those areas where there is a specific firm policy, I believe it is fair and right for all senators in this place to be able to represent the views of their conscience.Obviously the Greens (WA) believe in a consultative approach. We believe, in general, that a republic just for a republic's sake may not be good enough. However, there are people in the Greens (WA) who would disagree with me. Some think that you should go for a republic first and then the rest might come later. There is a degree of opinion in the Greens (WA). I feel sure that there are a range of opinions on this issue within the coalition and the Labor Party.I feel that this is one of those issues where there should and must be a free vote—if what is being said is that free votes are acceptable in relation to a republic plebiscite or referenda. This is about whether or not being able to say, `Yes, I would like to move towards a republic' can happen by the next election. This is not deciding for another government. This is deciding, in this government, whether or not senators believe that at some stage—if the referenda are defeated—there will be a firm commitment for another chance to make an opinion about the core issue of whether or not we move towards a republic and then talk about the details later.I feel strongly about this issue. I am concerned about any indications that the Labor Party finds this too difficult or that somehow or other, by putting this in, we are going to give people another choice—so we will not force more people to vote for what I believe is a poorly thought out model. I would be very concerned if this is the view and process of democracy that the ALP considers right and legitimate. However, I am sure that the ALP will consider giving this a free vote because of the issues involved. I look forward to them supporting this perfectly reasonable proposal.19:38:003431Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support Senator Margetts's amendment. You will remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, with unsullied clarity that last year when this matter was before the Senate I moved early on that the first thing that should happen in the process towards a republic was to ask the Australian people whether they wanted it, and then we should move to devise a form of a republic that would serve Australians best after that opinion had been given. I was totally unsuccessful in that. If the unthinkable happens from the republican majority's point of view and the referendum fails at the end of this year—and there are lots of reasons now why that could happen; I hear tonight people on the republican side of the fence saying that the Prime Minister's preamble would be enough to sink the chances of the republic and some of the most trenchant critics are from the Prime Minister's side of politics—and the whole thing turns out to be a shemozzle because we do not have a Prime Minister who can see good process, let alone good outcomes in this hugely important and historic matter for the nation, then we will have to start again.As Senator Margetts says, it is ineluctable logic that we are going to get a republic. Anybody who thinks otherwise only has to look to the potential for Britain itself to dispense with the monarchy and for us to be left with a crazy situation of having a head of state who may not even be a monarch in the future United Kingdom. We can speculate about that. What we must not put into the realms of speculation is the right of Australians to determine this nation's inevitable move to becoming a republic. If this process is so flawed that the yes vote does not get up at the end of this year, we will have to start again. Nobody is going to turn the tide of history. Nobody is going to throw out the opinion of the majority of Australians that we need a republic. It is simply going to become stronger. It is ineluctable.Senator Margetts is saying: if the referendum outcome is negative, let us here clear the path for a proper process next time around. The first thing you do is ask people whether or not they want a republic and, having established that, you move to what sort of republic. This is saying, `Let's get it right next time around if things fall down this time.' I support the motion. It is good sense. The idea that this is a once only occasion is so absurd. The only reason I think people could argue—and I have not heard it yet, but we may hear it soon—against this amendment of Senator Margetts's is if they thought there was some better option. I know people will get up and say in the wake of the referendum, `Let's leave it at that. We'll devise where to go to next.' Senator Margetts is astute enough to say, `No, let's have a clear and sensible alternative in place if that eventuality is realised.' I support her amendment.19:41:003431Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of the Democrats, I support the amendment moved by Senator Margetts. I believe a backup plan is appropriate. Certainly Senator Margetts is correct in claiming that there is a diverse range of opinions on this issue across the chamber and in different chambers in this parliament, and indeed in our respective political parties. The Democrats all have different views on this model and on other models but we share an underlying support for the republic and for moving toward an Australian head of state. We share an underlying concern at the diminished role for the Senate under this proposed model.Some of us are concerned about the complete absence of a role of the Senate in the dismissal process. Some of us are concerned about the notion that the Prime Minister can effectively dismiss the head of state, and I acknowledge that that is subject to ratification by the House of Representatives, I think within a 30-day period. Nevertheless, we suggest that perhaps there is an issue of natural justice that might not be afforded appropriately to that particular person, he or she. So there are flaws.Again, I put on record my support for the referendum this time around and the move to a republic as soon as possible. I am also very much in support of a Constitutional Convention along the lines that we supported earlier, as mooted at the Constitutional Convention in February last year—a second ConCon was supported by a whole host of distinguished and honourable members from the government including the Attorney-General, Senator Newman, Senator Hill, Chris Gallus, Treasurer Costello and Mr Kevin Andrews.I think a very important part of this whole process as we approach the referendum campaign is to acknowledge—as I said in my remarks earlier—that it is more important the second time around to iron out any flaws that we may perceive in the model. That is not to say that with its perceived flaws, whether you assess them as minor or major, we should not seek to make this change this time around. I am certainly a strong supporter of that position but, if for any reason the republic is not achieved at the referendum in November, then I would certainly want a backup plan of sorts. I would like the opportunity for the Australian public to be asked again—perhaps asked generally—whether they support a republic, and certainly have an opportunity to devise a model of their own making which they feel confident with and support.I suspect that finding a model that is perfect to all Australians will be hard and that at times it may annoy some of us. But change is evolutionary; change does happen slowly. I see the first part of this fundamental change taking place in November with this particular model and, for that reason, I personally support it.But, as I say, I look forward to having a backup plan just in case. Although I strongly support a referendum being successful this time round, we are taking no chances, given how rarely we have referenda in this country and how rarely they are successful. I also look forward to a free vote on this issue in the chamber, given the minister's earlier comments in relation to the rationale for a free vote on other issues—in particular the preamble.19:45:003432Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government's position on this amendment is quite clear: this is a similar situation to the previous amendment moved by the Greens, which was a contingent motion; that is, if we became a republic then there would be this convention. This amendment proposes that if a republic fails at this referendum then we have a plebiscite.It really does not make common sense to start deciding things before we know the outcome of the referendum, because who knows what will come out during the debate or the issues that will emanate from that debate and arise during that time leading up to the referendum. It may well be that something else crops up which we have not foreseen here today. I think this crystal ball gazing into the future is just that. It is too hypothetical to make any decision on at the moment. It is too hypothetical to bind any government. It would make much more sense to say, `Let's wait and see what happens when the people of Australia make their minds up at the referendum.'A plebiscite is not something which came out of the Constitutional Convention. It would go over ground which we will have gone over extensively this year as a nation. I have mentioned that the cost involved, if there were to be an appropriate mail-out, would be some $8 million to $9 million. That would be in addition to the moneys we are spending on the referendum this year. But, quite apart from that, there is the question of the value of a plebiscite. It would have no binding value. It would simply be saying, `There is a majority of people who might or might not want a republic.' But it would not answer the question as to the sort of republic they want.I must take issue with the previous comments in relation to the Constitutional Convention. The Prime Minister is not saying in any way that he does not care what the Constitutional Convention recommended or is disregarding it. The Constitutional Convention said, `If there was to be a republic then we look at a further Constitutional Convention.' Again, that was a big `if'. It was a contingent recommendation. All the other recommendations are being implemented by this government and are being pursued as we undertook to do so. We never undertook to pursue the question of a further convention.It is unfair to attack those members of the government who were part of the Constitutional Convention and who voted for a convention to be held if we became a republic. I think it is pertinent that we wait and see what the outcome is and then we make up our minds on whether we have a future convention, whether we have plebiscites or whatever. But, at this stage, the government is opposed to this amendment and thinks it is unwise to plot any course of action in the future without knowing the result of the referendum. For those reasons, the government is opposing this amendment moved by the Greens (WA).Can I also add that this is not a vote which the government sees as being appropriate for a free vote. It is one which goes to procedure, not to the issue or substance at hand. The government has said we can have a free vote on whether or not Australia becomes a republic and on whether or not that preamble is part of the Constitution. The government has said it is government policy to have a referendum. It is a governmental decision that we do not have a plebiscite and that we do not support this amendment moved by the Greens (WA). It is a procedural question, not one which goes to substance or conscience. Therefore, there will not be a free vote on it. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.19:54:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.45Bolkus, N. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.3433Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills3433r7263433Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time. 19:58:003434Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The opposition supports the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . It will pave the way for the introduction of an accrual accounting system in the government. As I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill, I will be brief. I thank the government for briefing my office, and I understand the bill has five key proposals.Firstly, it is proposed that the current fund accounting arrangements be abolished and replaced with accrual accounting arrangements for government agencies. The proposed accrual accounting system will recognise the financial effects of transactions and events, not just the financial flow of cash. The opposition agrees that accrual accounting, as well as related changes to procedures in the management of public accounts, would help in reducing administrative and system costs. The proposed accrual accounting system will also provide agencies with greater independence in managing their funds.Secondly, special accounts are intended to be established within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with the replacement of the Reserved Money Fund and Commercial Activities Fund. This would remove unnecessary transactions between accounts.Thirdly, the Treasurer will be given the power to invest public moneys. I am aware that this is effectively an extension of the Treasurer's current powers available to him under the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Act 1955. Fourthly, it is proposed that the Minister for Finance and Administration will have to prepare monthly financial statements and that the statements must be in the form that is consistent with the budget estimates for the financial year. Fifthly, it is proposed that in the course of the transition—that is, for the period 1999-2000—the finance minister need only prepare quarterly statements as opposed to the required monthly schedule. This proposal is reasonable on the grounds that agencies may not have fully adapted their systems to the new regime in the immediate short term.The opposition supports the change to the accrual accounting standard as it would introduce a level of transparency in identify ing outcomes and the true costs of delivering outputs. On the impact of accrual accounting on budget proceedings for 1999-2000, I am so far encouraged that the government has been prepared to discuss issues to ensure the readability of upcoming budget papers and accounts. In particular, the government has indicated that it would endeavour to provide a basis on which previous budget papers could be compared with the 1999-2000 version. Other issues are being sorted out between the opposition and the government on the budget process. I encourage the government to continue its helpful approach.20:01:003434Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Democrats support the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 .20:01:003434Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise today to talk about the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . This is a very important issue because it changes how we will be reading and hearing about the way governments organise their budgets. Just a few days ago, the government held a seminar about how this might work in a budget context. Quite a few MPs were there, mostly from the non-government side—Labor and Greens parliamentarians and their staffers. It does seem that there are quite a lot of questions that are still to be asked and answered, and there are still a lot of unknowns.One concern that I have is that, while it has the potential for greater accountability, it also has the potential to be a little reductionist—although it depends how it is organised, and it depends how it is reported. The potential for good or bad is what worries us at the moment. This bill attempts to bring the legislative framework provided by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 into line with the accrual financial framework that will begin on 1 July 1999.The move to an integrated accrual budgeting resource management and financial reporting framework was recommended by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its reports Nos 338 and 341 of November 1995 and by the National Commission of Audit in its report of June 1996. The primary change made by the bill is to repeal the provisions dealing with fund accounting while retaining the essential features of the funds and the ability to hypothecate money for specified purposes through provisions to establish special accounts within the consolidated revenue fund—the CRF.The Greens have a number of concerns about this bill. Some of these are specifically to do with the provisions of the bill itself, some arise in the context of accrual accounting as a framework, and some arise from the broader issues of the kinds of indicators we are looking at to determine public policy in this country.Let us look at the reporting requirements. The Greens have concerns about the less rigorous reporting requirements in this bill. The reduction in reporting requirements allows the minister to publicise the Commonwealth financial transactions every quarter rather than every month. We acknowledge that this arrangement can last for only 12 months at the most. However, this issue is important for transparency. Not only is it important for transparency, but it is also important when we struggle—and every year we struggle—to work out what has happened between one year and another. It is especially so at this time of change and we really need more, not less, transparency while we are trying to track massive changes in accounting systems, although the government acknowledges this will be difficult to track. We understand that the government acknowledges there will be difficulties, but we do believe that it is possible.We have been given assurances that this is a backup provision only—a contingency plan. We are advised by the department and by the office of the parliamentary secretary, Mr Slipper, that it is the intention for the minister to report under section 54 of the Financial Management Act on a monthly basis unless it is impossible in a practical sense to do so. We are advised that Senator Ellison will clarify this intention, and we will be seeking such a clarification on the record during the committee stage of the bill or perhaps during the final second reading contribution.In addition, the Greens are concerned that departments may be left underfunded during this changeover period to accrual accounting. While the government recognise that there may be troubles with gathering data for reporting, they are not acknowledging the possibility of extra start-up costs for departments. It seems that there is little doubt the start-up costs will be an issue. It may require more staff—certainly, updated software—and other system changes. Advice we were given at the seminar indicates that a lot of the information that is normally available during Senate reports will be available again. This would indicate that probably there is going to be more information provided in the reports, and surely this may mean more people involved. It certainly may mean more work for those people interpreting that data.The Joint Committee of Public Accounts, report No. 338 Accrual accounting: a cultural change, August 1995, pages 48 to 51 and the National Commission of Audit Report to the Commonwealth government of June 1996, especially pages 229 to 232, are relevant, especially this sentence:The initial cost of the move to full accrual accounting should not be underestimated, particularly the differential impact of the changes on smaller departments and agencies.The government appears to have rejected the JCPA's August 1995 recommendation that supplementary funding be provided to agencies to help them redevelop their financial management systems to facilitate the move to full accrual accounting.Mr Slipper's office has assured us there will be a review of all departments and specifically their funding arrangements. Consequently, the Greens seek clarification that the departments' resources and their abilities to deal with the accrual accounting framework will be a highly relevant consideration during the review of the financial position of departments as part of the budget process this year. We would hate to think that they would be required to find those resources somehow by other means.I move now to issues relating to the more general concerns with the accrual accounting framework. From our point of view, there are unknown ramifications. In general, the change to the accrual accounting system will have a number of positives for transparency in management of the Public Service. The system will provide a more comprehensive basis for making managerial decisions as it gives a more accurate outline of all the resources used by the department. It changes the management focus from one primarily on cash flows and fund balances to one that focuses on all resource flows and assets and liabilities.There certainly was a case to be made that the Public Service was much too process oriented and too little outcome oriented. However, honourable senators will realise that in Senate estimates when people asked about outcomes there were a whole range of outcomes that were sought. I am not sure whether or not this range of outcomes that the community believes are important has been gathered. We will get to that later.What is the cost of this move? It is fair to say that many of the holes and the problems in the accrual accounting framework have not yet been realised. It is likely that the full ramifications of the proposed changes are not yet fully comprehended by those who will be affected by them. They may well be much worse than expected. The Greens have a number of concerns already. Anecdotal reports suggest that the implementation timetable may be somewhat ambitious for many of the departments. Indeed, this is suggested by the Department of Finance and Administration themselves, as they are concerned that it will be difficult to meet the usual monthly reporting requirements.I will also be keeping a watching brief to see that the focus on outcomes does not swamp important procedural issues, such as consultation in actually devising outcomes and outputs and consultation in pursuing programs and initiatives. You may recall that one of the first processes, got together by COAG to work out benchmarks, was on schools. I have mentioned this before in this chamber. A whole bunch of Treasury officials got together to decide on what were good outcomes and benchmarks in schools. The only thing they forgot was that perhaps this was not the best way. They were not actually the right, qualified people to work out what were good school education benchmarks.On that particular occasion, a group of concerned parents contacted the Greens (WA). It seems that they provided information to the wider community. They were allowed—it was not advertised—to make submissions to this process. We do not really know exactly what happened in this process. What we do know is that the process did not continue in the same manner as was proposed in the beginning. Here we are with a huge leap of faith that somehow or other outcomes can be devised out of thin air without so much as a process—any visible process—by which opinions are sought as to what are good outcomes in a whole range of programs.The Greens have general concerns with the whole thrust of so-called reform that accrual accounting is based on. `Reform' as a word means a change for the better. The then Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquired into this issue. They said that one of the underlying reasons for the Financial Management Improvement Program (FMIP) was to:. . . encourage contestability or market competition to influence the way in which goods and services are provided—and later—Accrual accounting can be characterised as being one element of the various commercial reforms which have been introduced into the Australian Public Service.The Greens have major concerns with the immense business focus. While it provides some benefits, it can drastically cut public interest corners. When you are looking at a situation where, in effect, you are treating every department and program as if it has to stand on its own feet, as if it is a business system, then basically what you are doing is putting to those departments that they are going to have to raise revenue or sell assets, or basically come to their own account's defence.I do not think that is necessarily the way to run a federal government. It might be. I am not even sure it is the way to run a business—that every part of the business has to stand on its own feet. There are very good reasons why businesses support or even subsidise one element of their business. It could be public relations. Who said that public relations had to necessarily, or at least initially, bear its own fruit? However, there are very good reasons why some elements of a business should be supported at one stage and not at others. The very reason that government activities are supported is that there is an understanding by the wider community that governments are expected to do those things which the private sector generally will not, or will not do particularly well. It is inappropriate to consider that each of those programs has to run as if it is a business. Here we have a giant leap of change on the assumption that this is what everybody wants. I am not sure that that is the case with the Australian community.The Greens do have major concerns with this immense business focus. While it provides some benefits, as I say, it can cut public interest corners. The national competition policy is linked to this issue. Basically what we are seeing is that our accounts systems in relation to budgets are going to link into the 1995 national competition policy. Honourable senators would realise that, for the first time since 1995, we are actually looking into the national competition policy to see what the impacts are. I find it extraordinary that we are actually now leaping into putting accrual accounting to match this national competition policy before we know what the impacts of the national competition policy are. We are looking here at the short term and at price over some broad public interest concerns. Any time you say that, someone will say, `Oh, you can always put the other issues into contracts.' The reality is we have not trained people to put those kinds of things into contracts. We cannot pre-think of all of those issues which are not within the price mechanisms and are not within the market mechanisms. The kind of glib responses you usually get, when you are talking about issues other than simply price and bottom line, do not make many people feel terribly relaxed and at ease.It is necessary to realise that government departments and government business enter prises are more than businesses—much more. They exist to administer government policy and government policy has, at its heart, public interest. If it has not, one would wonder why. It is not about highest profit and lowest cost. So it is not always appropriate to try to overlay business considerations on government departments. The goals of profit maximisation are rarely appropriate in the public realm. This should always be at the forefront of our minds.There are broader issues. An accrual accounting system will generally always seek to measure the full costs of a particular transaction, task or process. It does so by using benchmarks or standards. Despite the concern expressed, the Greens believe this is a step in the right direction in some areas. Measurement of the full costs of any given transaction, program or decision is extremely useful from a managerial and transparency perspective.What are the full costs? I would argue—as would many people in the community—that, for instance, when the government claim that their ANTS package has benefits for the community, you cannot know that unless you have looked at things like the environmental costs, the social costs and the health costs of such major policy decisions. The government will generally say, `Sorry, that is about the environment not about the main issue, which is dollars.' That shows a flawed understanding of what full costs and benefits should be about.The Greens would like to see this principle of accrual accounting extended further to include, as many other countries have done, environmental accounting systems. We would like to see these kinds of accounts integrated into the national accounts and the budgetary process so that the value of our natural resources is as transparent as the value of the capital stocks in the Defence Force. I hasten to add that that is not necessarily particularly transparent.The economy and the natural environment interact at many points, and these interactions raise analytical questions. The nation's wealth includes natural resources, such as oil and gas reserves and timber, that are used in produc tion. At what rate are these resources being used? What does it mean if you get a certain amount of so-called profit but you have run down your resources?The income of producers in the mineral industries includes a return to the drilling rigs, mining equipment, and other structures and equipment engaged in production, as well as a return to the mineral. What share is attributable to the mineral? Economic activity adds to the proved stock of natural resources by exploration and technological innovation. How much of the use of natural resources in production has been offset by these additions?Households, governments and businesses all make expenditures to maintain or restore the environment. What share of their spending is for the environment? The economy disposes of wastes into the air and water, and the resulting degradation of the environment imposes costs, such as lower timber yields and fish harvests, higher cleaning costs and maybe even costs to human lives. What are these costs? Which sectors bear them?The answers to questions such as these about the interaction of the economy and the environment are often based on partial and sometimes even inconsistent information, suggesting the need to identify and quantify the interactions within a systematic framework as a basis for more informed analysis and decision making. The United Kingdom, Canada, many Scandinavian countries and the United States have already implemented these systems in a sophisticated manner. We should be following the lead, and substantial groundwork should be done in these countries.We have already gone some way to providing the basis for getting environmental accounts up and running. In 1995 the ALP government of the time allocated $3.5 million to enable the Australian Bureau of Statistics to develop environmental and resource statistics linked to the national accounts. As noted in the press release associated with the announcement:This move was to allow for the development of an integrated framework which links the measurement of economic activity to changes in the environment and the country's resource base . . . It also extends to assessments of possible policy issues such as regulations, charges and incentives impacting on the environment.The ABS has already issued some extremely useful publications that attempt to put forward both qualitative and quantitative assessments of Australia's natural assets. In particular, in June 1996 Australians and the Environment was released. Also, the ABS has released three documents related to satellite accounts: the energy account, the minerals account and the fish account. The water account is due out later this year. The forest account and the wastes account are being prepared.The 1996 Saving our Natural Heritage coalition policy document indicated that the development of green accounts would have priority in the ABS forward work program. So where are they? In addition, I note with interest that on 9 September 1996 the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, responded to a question on notice about the green accounting process by saying that a progress review of achievements was scheduled for the latter part of the 1998-99 financial year. I will be waiting with bated breath for that report.The ABS has already gone a long way down the track to providing a basis for the ability to engage actively and rigorously in environmental accounting. What is needed now is commitment to using in a positive and integrated manner the excellent information provided by the ABS. The government has already made the right noises. The government now needs the political will to look beyond the narrow budget and national account indicators and to see things holistically. The Greens will be supporting the passage of this bill but will seek clarification during the committee stage with regard to the issues raised previously in my speech.20:21:003438Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Hopefully I can allay some of the concerns of the Greens in this reply. In relation to the reporting requirements, the publishing of the report once a month will occur in that transitional period only if it is possible. If it is not possible, then it will be quarterly. It is only for that transitional period of 12 months that there is the possibility of quarterly reporting. Thereafter it will be fixed on a monthly basis. That really takes care of the question asked by the Greens in relation to reporting. The only possibility of the quarterly reporting is during that 12-month transitional period.In relation to underresourcing, I can tell the Senate that the government will ensure that departments are adequately resourced to ensure the efficient delivery of programs under the accrual management resource framework. That is a commitment by the government. It is the government's view that the funding question here is not an issue. It will not be an impediment to implementation.In relation to the question of environmental aspects, questions of natural resources being included in accrual accounting, it is true that the ABS has come a long way in relation to this. The matter was first raised in 1995, as Senator Margetts pointed out. The World Bank at that time had also looked at this very question. I can undertake to Senator Margetts to take this up with the Minister for Finance and Administration. At this stage I do not think we are in a position to commit either way in relation to what we can do with that now, but I will certainly take it up with the Minister for Finance and Administration. I thank members of the minor parties and the opposition for their support, and I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3439The bill.20:23:003439Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to ask the minister some questions on this issue. The answer in relation to the monthly accounting, I guess, was phrased in a slightly different way from the way it could have been. The minister says it will be provided monthly only if it is possible; if not, it is quarterly. I am afraid that is not quite the emphasis that I would like to hear. I would like to hear that it will be produced on a monthly basis and only if it is not possible will it be quarterly. I know it is pedantic but the reality is that, if you start off with `will do it only if', that is actually giving the wrong signal to the department. So I would like some assurance that the emphasis from the government is actually on the other foot, that they are assuming that people will come up with monthly accounts and report it monthly and that only if there is a good case put up for the impossibility of that will it be done in the quarterly accounts.I would like to ask a few questions also in relation to environmental accounting. The minister has said he will take this up with the Minister for Finance and Administration. However, I would like him to take it on board and perhaps respond if he can. What we have indicated is that there is a stated commitment that this is government policy in general. We have clear indications, both from the previous government and the current government during the time of the previous government and the current government, that the resources and the information exist for environmental indicators, and I add social indicators, to be part of the process so that we actually know whether we are taking a step forward in our total economic framework or whether we are taking a step back. That would indicate whether there are social, environmental and other costs that sometimes might be more important than some of the economic benefits.So I would like to know that there is some commitment that the resources that exist will be used and that that information will at some stage be used. If not, I guess we will have to see from the government a different policy. So I do not think it is a matter of `we will take this up with the minister'. I understand that Senator Ellison cannot answer on the spot, but surely this is either a government policy or not, whether there are some moves to further integrate or take up this information or whether unfortunately this good information is going to sit there in the ether in the odd report and will not actually become a part of any of the accrual accounting process that we are moving to. I am not just talking about the environment budget statements; I am talking about budget statements on defence, social welfare, sport or recreation. I am talking about budget statements in any program or area where the Commonwealth may be involved. Somehow or other there needs to be an understanding that the other costs, whether they are social, environmental or even health costs, can be at some stage integrated, that there are indicators that eventually will tell us whether in fact we are moving forward. If we are not, this will give us an indication of what we need to do to change the way we act so that we are looking at the full costs, so that we are not perhaps transferring costs from the private sector to the public sector on the assumption that there are going to be overall benefits.I come to this debate, I have to say, with a number of years behind me of trying to work with communities to try to talk to local, state and federal governments about these issues. I know how important they are to the wider community. They can understand and they have a sense of what the issues are for their community. Often local communities need assistance in getting that information together. But they cannot understand why governments are not prepared to see that there are some things other than dollars and that their concerns about social or environmental costs ought to be part of that consideration of whether a project or a program is good, or whether it needs to be altered or strengthened. These are things that are very important to a wide number of people, and I guess I need a firmer statement on that.I would also like to hear from the government—this may well be on notice as well—the government's position on whether they are prepared to support a reference on environmental accounting, and I would have to add social and environmental accounting, to the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I would like to see that at some stage the government are prepared to support this. Obviously I need to talk to the Labor Party on this as well. But at some stage we need to look at how these types of accounts are integrated into the system and whether there is any indication from the government that at some stage they will support such an inquiry to look at integrating these kinds of accounts.20:29:003440Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the first issue, can I say to Senator Margetts that it is the intention that there be monthly reporting unless that is not possible. So the way that you had termed it, Senator Margetts, is the correct way, and I can give you that assurance. What I was stressing was that the only possibility of quarterly reporting is during that 12-month transition period, but the intention is definitely that it be monthly, unless it is not possible.In relation to the building into accounting standards of environmental costs, the government has no policy, although accounting standards are moving in the direction of building environmental costs into the accounts. An example which has been given to me is where you have a mine to which remediation might be required. That is an environmental cost.Certainly the ABS has been doing work on this. That started under the prior government and has continued under this government. I can give you an assurance that the government is mindful of this and that I will take it up with the Minister for Finance and Administration. The government has looked at the work done by the ABS. That work by the ABS has continued under this government. It is not work that has been halted in any way. It is something which is evolving; it is certainly not something which can happen overnight. You have to look at the difference between national accounts and departmental accounts. That is another thing which has to be borne in mind. I think you had one other point.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—The reference.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—Yes, dealing with the reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I would have to take that question on notice as to whether we would agree to a reference. You would have to draft terms of reference. I could not give you an answer here and now.20:32:003440Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister for that response. But I would like to indicate that, when the government want to change things—like changing the current system of accounting into accrual accounting—in effect they can change things overnight. That is what they are asking us to do. When the government want to change things like accounting systems, they can do this.The information, the expertise and so on about environmental and social accounting have been building up for some time. I do realise that resources are necessary, but in the end it might save us resources. So I would like to think that there is some commitment that we would move to that in the not too distant future, that basically the commitment is that we would not only allow the ABS to continue collecting this data but would actually see that as positive and that it should be part and parcel and become an automatic way of talking about the way we are progressing in the economy.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.3441Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills3441r697Billsr6653441Consideration resumed from 24 March.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FRINGE BENEFITS REPORTING) BILL 1998The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is a revised running sheet on this. The question is that the bill stand as printed. The first amendments on the running sheet are government amendments.20:35:003441Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am moving the following request for amendments to the bill on behalf of the government: amendment No. 5 excludes benefits relating to entertainment, facility leasing, expenses and remote area housing from fringe benefits reporting measures contained in the bill—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, I understand that they are not requests; they are in fact amendments. The running sheet that I have has you seeking leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 4 and Nos 6 to 15 together. Is that correct or have we had a change?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am seeking to move amendment 5, amendments 1 to 4, amendments 6 to 13 and amendments 14 and 15. I am speaking to them separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Which way are you wanting to move them? Do you want to move amendment 5 first?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I will move amendment 5 first. But I think that, unless people wish to have the amendments taken separately, I will move them together. If people wish to have them taken separately, I will move them separately.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Amendment 5 has to be dealt with separately from the rest of them because there is an opposition amendment to your amendment 5.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Right.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—So do you wish to deal with amendments 1 to 4 and 6 to 15, by leave, together and get them out of the way?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Sorry, I am just seeking advice. I think there is a technical issue here which I might seek some further advice on. I have now had those discussions and the desire is that we move No. 5 first because there are some amendments to 5 that the Labor Party is moving. So with the leave of the Senate I will seek to move 5 first.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You do not need leave. So you will move government amendment No. 5 on sheet DT219.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move amendment No. 5:(5) Schedule 1, page 5 (lines 16 to 23), omit subsection (3), substitute:What is an excluded fringe benefit ? (3) An excluded fringe benefit is a fringe benefit: (a) constituted by the provision of meal entertainment (as defined in section 37AD, whether or not the employer has elected that Division 9A of Part III apply to the employer); or (b) that is a car parking fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (c) whose taxable value is wholly or partly attributable to entertainment facility leasing expenses; or (d) that is a remote area housing fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (e) whose taxable value is worked out under section 59 (about remote area residential fuel); or (f) whose taxable value is reduced under section 60 (about remote area housing); or (g) that is an amortised fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (h) that is a reducible fringe benefit (see subsection 136(1)); or (i) that is a benefit prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.This amendment excludes benefits relating to entertainment facility leasing expenses and remote area housing from the fringe benefits reporting measure contained in the bill.20:37:003442Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have an amendment standing in my name to amendment No. 5, which is to admit and substitute the words that have been circulated in the chamber under my name. I move:At the end of subsection (3), add: ; or (j) that relates to occasional travel to a major population centre in Australia provided to employees and family members resident in a location that is not in or adjacent to an eligible urban area; or (k) that relates to freight costs for foodstuffs provided to employees resident in a location that is not in or adjacent to an eligible urban area.I so move, acknowledging Senator Trish Crossin's interests in this matter. This concerns an issue of the fringe benefits tax and its application to remote Australia. No better example of remote Australia can be found than in the remoter regions of both the Territory represented by Senator Crossin and the state represented by me. That is not to say that that is the limit of remote Australia; clearly there are parts of remote Australia in other states, such as in Queensland and New South Wales.We believe that the provision, as it is currently drawn, is drawn too tightly. In the debate that will come on amendments Nos 1 to 4 and Nos 6 to 13, the opposition will be indicating support for those government amendments. We believe that those amendments are essentially technical in nature and are required to make this bill more understandable and able to function more effectively. But, with respect to amendment No. 5, the amendment that I have moved will improve, I believe, the position that the government advances in order to clean up this bill before it goes for royal assent—assuming, of course, its carriage in this chamber.My amendment seeks to protect the interests of people, as I have said, who are living in remote areas, people who live in communities such as Aboriginal communities—but not exclusively Aboriginal communities: there are other workers in remote and regional Australia, and workers in the mining industry come to mind. The amendments will ensure that certain fringe benefits paid to compensate employees in remote areas will be not fixed with a financial penalty under this legislation. The two additional benefits to be freed are a benefit in relation to occasional travel to a major population centre in Australia provided to employees and family members resident in a location that is not in, or adjacent to, an eligible urban area and, in subclause (k), a benefit in relation to freight costs for foodstuffs provided to employees resident in a location that is not in, or adjacent to, an eligible urban area. They are the two additional benefits to be freed under this amendment.I could speak at some length on this matter, but I want to make these key points as to why the opposition believes this amendment is necessary. People who live in these localities are important Australians and need to be recognised as such. They are Australians who contribute to the overall need to develop and provide points of community within areas that most Australians do not want to go and live in. Their living conditions are not equal to those in urban Australia and, indeed, even in regions of Australia that might be regarded as farming or other areas where there are considerable locations of population. In other words, they have special needs; and to treat those people as if those needs do not apply and as if they are the same as everyone else is to treat them unfairly and unequally.The amendment that I have moved addresses in part, I believe, that imbalance. That means to say that occasionally these people need to be able to travel from their remote locations to capital cities, either to provide contact with their family or to provide relief from the hardships of their regional location. It also is the case that, in areas of regional Australia, the cost of food is high and freight costs are one of those input costs that ensure that foodstuff prices are much higher than you will find in capital cities.I know that the government may respond that they have a tax package which will reduce some parts of the freight costs but, even so, it will not reduce all of them; and the disparity between remote location prices and the prices of the same goods in the capital cities will remain. And it will remain very high because, in most cases, a monopoly rent is extracted by the carriers of food from city to remote locations. Usually this is not a competitive market: there is only one carrier and the market is charged what it will bear rather than the most competitive price. As a consequence, there is a higher cost of living in these locations than would otherwise be the case, and any change to the tax law under the government's upcoming GST bills will not remove that but will in many cases—according to evidence given to the Senate committee on the GST—exacerbate it.But that is not the debate before the chamber. The debate before the chamber is the fringe benefits reporting bill. This is a bill that we support and we see the need for, and it is part of the overall tax package. Taking it separately from the tax package, we support the measures that are made, but only if this amendment is accepted.20:44:003443Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I have to apologise for a very croaky voice this evening. I would like to speak to this amendment because, as my colleague Senator Cook said, it really goes not only to fringe benefits reporting but also to being able to recruit and maintain people who work in remote areas. It specifically came to my attention when we had a look at the range of people employed in the Northern Territory Public Service. The kinds of people we are talking about are nurses, Aboriginal health workers, teachers, Aboriginal assistant teachers, police, police aides, and the people who provide the sort of critical infrastructure in those communities that would not be there if it were not for public servants.These entitlements are not in fact part of a salary package. They are not part of an attempt by these people to opt out of any tax payment or avoid any responsibility they have in the social security system. They have been brought about mainly because they are allowances and conditions of service that are paid to these people as cash in kind. The Northern Territory government pays the fringe benefits tax. I am talking about the amendment to (j) regarding occasional travel.In the Northern Territory, places of isolation and remoteness are generally in one of three or four categories. The special category to which this amendment would not apply includes Adelaide River, Batchelor, Jabiru, Pine Creek and Yulara. They currently get only the rental rebate, so there is a provision in this bill to include those people. People living in those areas do not get particular isolated fares and do not get assistance with food, so they may not be covered by this.Category 1 in the Northern Territory includes people who live at Elliott, Mataranka, Newcastle Waters, Tennant Creek or Ti Tree. Category 2 includes places which are a little bit more remote, such as Harts Range or Imanpa, Neutral Junction, Wallace Rockhole, Stirling, Milikapiti. Category 3 includes places which are quite remote: Docker River, Milingimbi, Numbulwar, Ngukurr, Ramingining, Wadeye (Port Keats), Willowra, Yuendumu. I have a list here of the way in which those communities have been categorised for reasons of remoteness.If you live in category 1, 2 or 3, then you are currently entitled to two sorts of benefits: one is fares out of isolated areas—and we call them FOIL fares. The fares entitle these people and their families who are resident in remote localities to paid travel—either by air, or by motor vehicle at 49c a kilometre—to Alice Springs or Darwin two or three times a year, depending on their location. So the benefit is specifically designed to assist these people to get out of these isolated communities two or three times a year.I think people need to understand why this was negotiated and why it holds such a special place in attracting and maintaining these people. It is very hard to work in a place like Docker River if there is no incentive to get out to Alice Springs a couple of times a year. The Northern Territory government used to provide these people with tickets or a way out; they now pay that up as cash.The freight on foodstuffs also applies to these people. From 1 October 1996, there was a provision to subsidise these people for freight on foodstuffs—they were reimbursed on production of receipts. There are currently different categories for this. If you have dependants, you are entitled to have 23 kilos of freight of your food paid for. There is an additional 12 kilos for each dependant. There is a further incentive of another eight kilos if you are in particular remote communities.So this amendment maintains the benefits for those people in remote communities. These two benefits were always negotiated to attract and recruit but, more importantly, to maintain these people in isolated areas. In closing, I repeat that it is not an attempt on the part of these people to move out of any obligation in relation to social security payments or to diminish their responsibility in payment of tax. It is an amendment to this bill that allows these people to maintain these two benefits, which are well in excess of $1,000 in relation to fringe benefits that are paid to them, without them appearing on their group certificate, because it is a recognition by the government that their expertise is needed to maintain the infrastructure in these communities.20:51:003444Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government does not see the need for this amendment moved by the opposition, as we think it in some way detracts from the policy objec tive of preventing salary packaging to avoid income threshold limits. I note the remarks by Senator Crossin. She was very careful to state that she did not see this as in any way an attempt to avoid the appropriate limits on payments for social security and various surcharges—I think I am summarising correctly—but saw it as the maintenance of a benefit which is important to people in that area.The opposition at first moved a wide-ranging amendment which the government could not support. The revised draft is much tighter and we have been advised that there are no significant revenue implications to the amendment. We would prefer this amendment not to proceed but, in discussions with the non-government parties, we have agreed not to oppose this amendment, noting the strong support that Senator Cook and others have given to the general thrust of the bill before the chamber.20:52:003444Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—On balance, the Australian Democrats think the case is made. We would have opposed the original amendment but this revised amendment is satisfactory and we therefore support it.20:52:003444Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) had some questions on the amendment, and still had some questions after Senator Cook's contribution, but Senator Crossin, with great effort—I understand how she feels; I remember doing that once—has explained some of the questions that we had. They include the kinds of groups in the community we are talking about, the kinds of jobs we are talking about and also how you would disaggregate it. I understand that it is an issue of dealing with receipts. We wondered how this fitted into people's packages, how it was paid and so on. I can now see a little about how the process works. The question I need to ask the government is: is it containable or is there the potential that other states might take this on? It is not necessarily a bad thing, but are there any other consequences for other states in relation to this measure?20:54:003444Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for those remarks. It is not limited to the Northern Territory; it applies across Australia.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—The question is that the opposition amendment to government amendment No. 5 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.20:54:003445Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments 1 to 4, 6 to 13, and 14 and 15:(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 13), after "benefit", insert "(other than an amortised fringe benefit)".[section 5C—extra excluded fringe benefits](2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 18), after Step 4, insert: Note: The result of Step 4 is the employer's aggregate fringe benefits amount if there are no amortised fringe benefits or reducible fringe benefits in relation to the employer.Step 5. Add to the total from Step 4 the amortised amount for the year of tax of each amortised fringe benefit (if any) relating to an employee of the employer, the employer and any year of tax.Step 6. Subtract from the total from Step 5 the reduction amount for the year of tax of each reducible fringe benefit (if any) relating to an employee of the employer, the employer and the year of tax.[section 5C—extra excluded fringe benefits](3) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 1), omit "Basically, an", substitute "An".[section 5D—extra excluded fringe benefits](4) Schedule 1, page 5 (lines 4 and 5), omit "There may be some adjustments if the benefits include benefits for remote area housing.".[section 5D—extra excluded fringe benefits](6) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 24) to page 6 (line 20), omit subsections (4) and (5).[section 5E—extra excluded fringe benefits](7) Schedule 1, page 6 (line 29), at the end of subsection (6), add "This subsection has effect despite subsection (2).". [section 5E—extra excluded fringe benefits](8) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection (8).[section 5E—extra excluded fringe benefits](9) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", or of the amortised amount or reduction amount relating to a fringe benefit,".[section 5F—extra excluded fringe benefits](10) Schedule 1, page 7 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", amortised amount or reduction amount (as appropriate),".[section 5F—extra excluded fringe benefits](11) Schedule 1, page 8 (lines 2 and 3), omit ", amortised amount or reduction amount (as appropriate)".[section 5F—extra excluded fringe benefits](12) Schedule 1, page 9 (lines 1 to 10), omit subsection (6).[section 5F—extra excluded fringe benefits](13) Schedule 1, page 14 (lines 8 to 10), omit "or value of a fringe benefit, or of the amortised amount or reduction amount relating to a fringe benefit,", substitute "of a fringe benefit".[section 136—extra excluded fringe benefits](14) Schedule 2, page 18 (after line 5), after item 4, insert:4A After subsection 221F(5CA) Insert: (5CAA) Subsection (5CA) does not apply if a reportable fringe benefits amount must be set out in the form for the group certificate under paragraph (5D)(d). This subsection does not limit the circumstances in which subsection (5CA) does not apply.[section 221F—group certificates](15) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (5GC), substitute: (5GC) The employer must give the employee 2 copies of the completed form no later than 14 July in the calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee ceased to be employed by the employer. [section 221F—group certificates]We are now talking about amendments 1 to 4. Six to 13 are consequential amendments resulting from this change to the measure. Amendments 14 and 15 remove the requirement for employers to issue early group certificates in certain circumstances where an employee will have a fringe benefits amount shown on their group certificate. Together, these amendments will further simplify the fringe benefits reporting measure and will significantly reduce compliance costs for employers.20:55:003446Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I support amendments 1 to 4 and 6 to 13. That leaves aside amendments 14 and 15, which I oppose. I support the ones that I have indicated backing for on the basis that essentially, as explained by the minister, they are technical and necessary amendments to make the bill read properly. Amendments 14 and 15 deal with the issuance of group certificates. From my recollection, these are amendments that, if carried, would mean that the rules would be changed and that workers severing their employment with an employer would not, as is currently required, be required to be provided with a group certificate within two weeks of that severance but would be provided with a group certificate at the end of the year—and not all employees would be in that situation.Before I go on, I do not think a case has been made out for why the current system should be changed. In fact, a case can be made out that this will impose greater red tape on business and inconvenience workers considerably. Where workers are involved in a downsizing or have left or are in companies where there is a high turnover of staff, the normal thing is for those workers, when they go on their way, to receive their group certificate so that they are in a position, at the end of year, to properly report their income. If this clause were to go ahead, they would have to wait until the end of the year to receive their group certificate.If there is any large-scale downsizing, that means that it imposes extra burdens on the employer as well as on the workers. As I said, far from simplifying the task for business, this will make the current system more complex. If the amendments succeed, there will be two classes of employees who have different rights to obtain group certificates. Those with fringe benefits will still get their group certificates within two weeks, if they leave work, and those without fringe benefits will have to wait until the end of the year. Differentiating between the two classes just makes life for employers more complicated, and unnecessarily so.20:58:003446Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As there has been a debate on the last two amendments I have moved, why don't we debate the amendments which we might be in blazing agreement on and get those out of the way.20:59:003446Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I indicate that the Democrats will support items 1 to 4 and 6 to 13.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments 1 to 4 and 6 to 13 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendments 14 and 15.21:00:003446Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook raised a number of issues. In responding to the matters that he raised, I may, hopefully, have a chance to persuade other non-government members in the chamber.To calculate an employee's reportable fringe benefits amount for a group certificate at an earlier date would, frankly, in our view, require employers to have much more complex and expensive record keeping systems in place. Further, where car fringe benefits are calculated under the statutory formula method, it will be difficult, although not impossible, to calculate an employee's reportable fringe benefits amount for a group certificate at a date earlier than 30 March. This is because the car statutory formula method requires the employer to know the odometer reading of the car at 31 March.To avoid these problems and to minimise employer compliance costs, the government proposes that the requirement to issue group certificates early not apply in cases where there is a reportable fringe benefits amount to be shown on the group certificate. Employees who receive fringe benefits with a taxable value of less than $1,000 will not be affected by the measure. It is estimated that there will be very few employees who receive reportable fringe benefits who will need an early group certificate as generally only employees who are departing overseas permanently are entitled to an early assessment of yearly income.The case that we are putting to the chamber is one where we are trying to minimise compliance costs. This is obviously a very important change that we are bringing forward. The general principles of the change were, I think, supported by both the major parties at the last election. In all these cases there is always a balance to be struck. We think that this is a fair and reasonable balance. We hope that senators will support the government's position.21:02:003447Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Through the chair, I ask the minister a few questions. The Labor Party have raised some real problems and we have to look at this from two perspectives. One is from the employer's perspective, and the difficulties with compliance and systems, and the other is from the employee's perspective. Dealing firstly with the employee, one of the benefits of the present system, as I understand it, is that an employee can get their group certificate relatively quickly after leaving someone's employ. There are categories of employees whose advice of their movements—their own personal household management—is less than wonderful. In other words, they may move and not let the former employer know where they have moved to, so they might have difficulty in receiving these forms by post. In turn, there is the danger that if too large a gap exists between the arrival of the group certificate and the ending of employment, the employer—particularly small businesses—may have gone broke, closed or sold their business. These are practical difficulties.When I looked at the government's amendment I was somewhat concerned about the use of the words `calendar year'. Notionally, if I read this correctly—perhaps the minister will advise me if I do not—the amendment states:The employer must give the employee 2 copies of the completed form no later than 14 July in the calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee ceased to be employed by the employer.To me that means that somebody could be fired on 14 January 1998 and only get their group certificate on 14 July 1999. I am surprised that we have not used the words `financial year', `the calendar year following the financial year', or something of that sort. That is a plain reading of it, as I see it. Frankly, it makes me nervous about the effect on employers and employees. I would also suggest to the minister that if his own advice is inadequate in this area, because we have many of these tax bills still to come before us we can always revisit this if it can be better worded later.21:05:003447Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think that some of the arguments that Senator Murray made rather cogently put the case for the amendment we have moved. I thought he expressed them rather well. Of course, I will not query that. I have sought advice on the matters that Senator Murray raised. I am not sure whether the correct person is present in the chamber—because the discussion has gone a bit further—but we understand that, from a practical perspective, the employee would receive the group certificate by 14 July in the same year. If that is a matter of concern to Senator Murray, I will seek further advice and provide that to him at a later date.21:06:003447Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I advise the minister that that is not how I read the amendment. It may mean that we either set it aside or proceed with the bill and later on, in the ANTS package, revisit this area. As it stands, and on the face of the evidence before me, I cannot support the amendment.21:06:003447Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—My understanding is that it is in the same year. If I receive any alternative advice which requires me to revise that, I will do so. The advice that I have is that it is in the same year.21:07:003448Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—In order to be practical and to expedite this, what the minister has said is that a precious small number of people will be affected by the measure and it does add an extra degree of complication. I would put those two arguments and say, `Why don't you just drop it?' Or you could do what has been suggested by the Democrats and put it on the backburner until it is better sorted out—probably outside of this chamber in some cross-party discussion. The two arguments I would put are that there are so few people affected and it adds an extra degree of difficulty. At the same time, if the minister is hampered in answering questions by the lack of the right adviser, that complicates this debate a little further. Perhaps it would be wise to accept the advice of the Democrats on this.21:07:003448Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am also having some difficulties with this amendment. I had difficulty understanding the arguments of Senator Cook initially, certainly in terms of the complexity and considering there were so few people involved. I think most people expect to get their group certificates at the end of the financial year. I have been in that situation when doing part-time jobs. I certainly did not get those group certificates until the end of the financial year. Most people's expectation is that they will get their group certificates and any fringe benefit notation at the end of the financial year, but I would draw the minister's attention to the example of a person who lost their job in January 1998. This would mean they would not get their group certificate until July 1999 and that is the only way I can read this. I do not think that it is a matter which we can get back to later; it has to be sorted out or we have to have a commitment that we are going to deal with it at another hour or in another bill. I do not think we can sort it out any other way.21:08:003448Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Seeing that Senator Murray has raised the issue, it may be best if we move to the other amendments and come back to this amendment. I think that is practi cal. By that time, I will be able to provide you with the definitive advice that Senator Murray is seeking. If that is practical and with the agreement of other people in this debate, that may be the way to move.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Minister, will you move the postponement of amendments 14 and 15?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move:That amendments 14 and 15 be postponed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, I understand you have some Democrat amendments?21:10:003448Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman. Before I move those amendments, may I advise the minister that whatever his advisers say they are going to need to amend clause 15 because it really does read, on the face of it, that you could have a gap of some 18 or 19 months between somebody leaving employment and receiving their group certificate. I can find no other way to read it, so I will leave it at that. I would not want you to come back and give us advice and then find that we are still not satisfied.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you seeking leave to move amendments 1 to 7 together?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 19), after item 2, insert:2A Subsection 6(1) Insert: reportable superannuation contribution for a year of income for a person who is an employee (within the meaning of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 ) means the total amount of contributions paid by that person's employer in respect of the person to a superannuation fund for that year of income.[section 6—definition](2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 17 (line 26), at the end of the item, add: ; and (e) the reportable superannuation contribution paid by the employer in respect of the employee during the period of 12 months that ended on 30 June in the same year (other than amounts set out in a previous group certificate).[section 221F—information on group certificates](3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 18 (line 12), at the end of the item, add: ; and (e) the reportable superannuation contribution (if any) paid by the employer in respect of the employee for the year of income ending on the 30 June mentioned in subsection (5C) (other than amounts set out in a previous group certificate).[section 221F—information on group certificates](4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 18 (line 31), at the end of subsection (5GA), add: ; and (c) has a reportable superannuation contribution for the next year of income in respect of the employee's employment by the employer.[section 221F—information on group certificates](5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 19 (line 6), at the end of subsection (5GB), add: ; and (c) the reportable superannuation contribution mentioned in paragraph (5GA)(b), reduced by so much of the amount (if any) as was set out in a previous group certificate.[section 221F—information on group certificates](6) Schedule 2, item 9, page 19 (line 21), after "amount", insert "and a reportable superannuation contribution".[section 221F—information on group certificates](7) Schedule 2, item 14, page 20 (line 30), after paragraph (b), insert: or (c) all or part of a reportable superannuation contribution paid by an employer in respect of the employee;[section 221H—group certificates]The reason I have moved these amendments together is, if they fall over, the other amendments that follow will consequentially fall over. So that is the way to do it.These amendments to A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 seek to include superannuation contributions made by employers on group certificates. I spoke at length on this in my speech during the second reading debate but I will briefly recap the arguments. The intention is simple, that group certificates show the full value of the remuneration package provided by employers. This will have several advantages. First, it would allow employees to see at a glance exactly how much their remuneration is worth. That would help to improve the standing of superannuation for employees as something real and practical and we think do wonders for its attractiveness.Secondly, it would allow the superannuation high income earners surcharge to be collected based on group certificates rather than from funds. This was the unanimous recommendation to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation at the time that the surcharge tax was introduced and that recommendation was from business, the unions and superannuation industry groups. It would dramatically reduce compliance costs for superannuation funds and ensure that no-one misses the surcharge net and that no-one is inadvertently caught up in it. I must stress that we have not moved to change the surcharge in this bill to do this.What we are proposing is that we provide the mechanism whereby it can be done later. Since group certificates are to be changed anyway for fringe benefits, it is the logical time to simultaneously add superannuation into the group certificates so that the collection mechanism for the surcharge can be revisited later.Thirdly and most importantly, it will allow superannuation to be added into the means test for other benefits. This will ensure that salary packaging attention does not just move from fringe benefits back to superannuation. The Democrats—and this view is shared by unions, business and superannuation industry groups—believe that the total salary of fringe benefits, superannuation and actual remuneration should be shown on group certificates.The government has already acknowledged that it is entirely appropriate that super contributions should be included in the means test for the 15 per cent high income earners superannuation tax surcharge. But that does not apply to the other superannuation rebates such as the spouse's contribution threshold; nor does it apply to the other tax surcharge on the high income earners from the 1996 budget, which was the Medicare surcharge; nor does it apply to social security benefits.There are still considerable benefits for high income earners to salary package, using superannuation to get access to other benefits and rebates which they should not have access to. The measure that we have put forward has the potential to increase the savings from cracking down on salary packaging from the $270 million proposed by the government to possibly twice that amount. That is not something to be lightly dismissed. It is for that reason that I commend the amendments to the Senate.21:15:003450Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Amendments Nos 1 to 12 and 14 to 27 to A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 and the amendments to A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998 proposed by the Australian Democrats seek to have employers' superannuation contributions reported on employee group certificates and be included in the base calculations for various income tests. The government rejects these amendments because, firstly, superannuation contributions made to a complying superannuation fund are exempt from fringe benefits tax. Therefore, the inclusion of these payments on group certificates would be inconsistent with the exclusion of other FBT exempt benefits from the reporting requirements.Secondly, employers' superannuation contributions are already taken into account when calculating an employee's liability for superannuation surcharge. This means that employees are unable to avoid paying the superannuation surcharge by swapping their gross salary for employer superannuation contributions. Therefore, amendments Nos 26 and 27 to A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 are not only incorrect but also effectively include employers' superannuation contributions twice in the calculation of adjusted income for surcharge purposes.The time and cost which would be expended by employers to report superannuation contributions on group certificates would be significantly greater than the time and cost which would be expended by employers to report fringe benefits. In particular, employers are generally not in a position to know the detail of superannuation contributions attributed to employees who are members of defined benefits superannuation funds and therefore could not comply with these amendments. The requirement to record reportable fringe benefits on group certificates would not apply to all employers and employees, because not all employees receive fringe benefits. However, to include superannuation contributions on employee group certificates would generally impact on all employers and employees, including employees on low income as a result of the superannuation guarantee arrangements.Superannuation funds are required to provide the Australian Taxation Office with surcharge information by 31 October following the financial year. This does not align with the general requirement for employers to issue employees with their group certificates by 14 July following the financial year. There is an error in amendments Nos 4 and 5 to A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998. When an employee leaves employment between 1 April and 30 June in any year, the amendment requires the reportable superannuation contribution for the next year of income to be included on the group certificate. This is not logical as the employee has already left their employment before the next year of income starts. Amendments Nos 14 to 25 to A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Minister, I think you are moving on to other amendments.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Sorry, I beg your pardon.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray has only moved amendments Nos 1 to 7 because he indicated that the others are consequential to the passing of amendments Nos 1 to 7. Is that right, Senator Murray?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Yes.21:19:003450Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have had a look at these amendments and had a bit of a think about what Senator Murray has said. I understand where he is coming from. If I apprehend correctly what he has said, he is concerned that these bills, which deal with fringe benefits tax, cut off any avenue for avoidance or evasion. It is out of that quarter that he approaches this legislation and focuses on superannuation as a possible means of tax minimisation in a sense which would be unfair. I understand that motivation. In fact, I join Senator Murray in the motivation. But, looking at these amendments, I am not sure that I can support them.The first thing I should say about superannuation is that we see it principally as deferred income and therefore addressing issues of living standards after retirement or after the age of 55 and also addressing issues of national savings. I am sure Senator Murray sees it in those terms too, but I think it is necessary to get that on the record.Secondly, according to the schedule, super goes up to a maximum of nine per cent of salary by 2002. If these amendments go ahead, then workers would lose more of their social security benefits as their superannuation went up. I do not think that is what is intended but I think that is what the effect is. I do not want to delay this but I would not mind if Senator Murray just addressed that question. If that were the application of the amendment, then I am afraid I would have to support the government in this and would do so.21:20:003451Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—A couple of key points have emerged here. One is whether we are going to consider a review of income taxation as being part of this total tax reform process. It is the Democrats' view that income tax has to be viewed holistically; in other words, the actual money you receive at the end of the month plus all fringe benefits and any other benefits such as superannuation. There are, as you know, a number of fringe benefits still left out of those which are going to appear in the fringe benefits box. What we are inclined towards is a very transparent and open system whereby salary packaging essentially becomes a thing of the past. What you see is what you actually get. That is the principled approach we take to it.The second theme was emphasised by Senator Cook in his earlier remarks, which is that there are people, particularly in the higher income areas, who are using salary packaging—or fringe benefits and superannuation—to minimise their tax. The result is that the tax burden on those who pay their full way is naturally increased. It lessens the ability of the system to cope.The third area which you have raised is notionally a problem, but it really relates far more to our whole system whereby working people who put in a good day's work are not appropriately remunerated and have to skive and scrimp and find other ways in which to advance their wage. That is not universally true, but it is certainly true of some sectors and some industries.We would say that if somebody was achieving a nine per cent superannuation benefit but the taxation consequence of adding that to their salary pushed their disposable income below a living wage, that is clearly an unacceptable outcome. But the problem is not with evaluating the superannuation as part of the package. The problem is how much they are actually getting as a living wage. If superannuation and fringe benefits were added to salary, many more Australians would be excluded from the benefits they get from the social security system. We think that is desirable, because if people who are not entitled to do so access the social security system, it makes it much harder for the disadvantaged and low income people. What we have been concerned about is that the government have been hammering away at the people at the bottom, whereas if they attacked more of the people at the means tested end, we could get somewhere with this.If, as a result of my earlier remarks and the construction of the amendments, the Labor Party have some sympathy but still have some concerns, I would suggest to you, Senator Cook—since we are in the middle of reviewing a total package and there will be other opportunities within the total package of some 29 bills—that perhaps you would come back to the Democrats and say what you do or do not like, and we could pursue this again at a later stage.To the government I say: you are starting to pursue the principle that we need to look at, which is that a person's total package needs to be evaluated for taxation purposes and at the interface of means testing with the social security system. This means that, in our view, at some time you have to address the issue of superannuation and how it is recorded in terms of a person's total salary package. The group certificate would provide the tax office with a single piece of paper which is the vehicle for saying, `This is the entire salary package that this person is getting'—salary plus fringe benefits plus superannuation. We are saying, simply put, that you have only gone part of the distance on this.In the same way that I have made the offer to the Labor Party, I make the offer to the government: if the principle and the prospects which we are outlining attract you, there are opportunities over the next few months, in dealing with the overall tax package, of addressing our particular concern. I personally have difficulty in understanding why, as a principle, it would be objectionable to pursue.21:26:003452Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to indicate that the Greens (WA) will support the Democrats' amendments. I have heard the arguments from the government and from the opposition, but I have not heard anyone say that this, as a principle, will not work. Perhaps I heard that from the government; I did not necessarily hear that from the opposition. My support, if nothing else, is to indicate that the principle of making salary packaging fair and accountable is a reasonable one, and we should be moving towards it. I would like to also encourage the Labor Party to consider supporting such measures at a later date.21:27:003452Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I heard what Senator Murray has said, and I do not on this occasion feel that I can support his amendments. I take that view because we in the Labor Party regard superannuation as quite a significant achievement of the former Labor govern ment, that it ought to be there as a right, and that these changes would badly affect people at the lower end of the superannuation scale. For those reasons, we would not want to proceed.21:28:003452Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 23 March 1999.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The question is that amendments Nos 1 to 7 moved by Senator Murray be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.21:28:003452Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will drop amendments 8 to 12 and move to amendment 13. I move Democrats amendment No. 13:(13) Schedule 3, page 29 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:3 Subsection 106Q(7) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (7) Subsection (1) does not require a person to pay an amount for a year of income if: (a) under section 8 of the Medicare Levy Act 1981 : (i) no Medicare levy is payable by the person on the person's taxable income for the year of income; or (ii) the amount of Medicare levy payable by the person on the person's taxable income for the year of income is reduced; or (b) under section 159N of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , the person is entitled to a rebate of tax in the taxpayer's assessment for the year of income; or (c) under the Social Security Act 1991 , the person is entitled to receive additional family payment.[section 106Q—repayment test]This is a very important amendment which seeks to undo some of the damage done by the HECS changes in the 1996 budget. We include it in our amendments because of our desire to highlight that tax reform should be about improving the progressivity of the tax system—that means ensuring that high in come earners are made to pay their fair share while the tax burden is lifted on low income earners.The rises in graduate taxes in 1996 were the most regressive move on tax made by this government. If tax reform proceeds without some relief for very low income earners now facing punitive rates of tax, then we will have failed as a parliament and as a Senate to do the best we could by low income earners.The original theory of the HECS repayment was that graduates should pay a portion of the above median income that they earn, recognising that university education has contributed to that. That fundamental underpinning of fairness, of tax equity, was undone by the 1996 HECS changes. The repayment threshold was reduced from $28,200, or 82 per cent of average weekly earnings, to $20,700, which is now around 53 per cent of average weekly earnings. By any measure, someone earning half of average weekly earnings is not a high or even a modest income earner; he or she is a low income earner. Yet this government increased the tax paid by low income earners who have had some higher education by $621 a year, which is a weekly tax increase of around 20 per cent. For someone on average weekly earnings of around $38,000 a year, the HECS changes increased the tax paid by $2,325 a year, or 25 per cent.The Medicare levy is not payable for a couple without children who are earning less than $22,594. Under our proposal it would not be payable for any income less than $24,450, which is the taxable income at which the low income earner's rebate finally phases out. Beyond that, the Medicare levy exemption adds on $2,100 for each additional dependent child. The additional family assistance means test adds on $3,000, from $24,350 rising to $28,200 from July next year. At present, a family with three children is exempt from the Medicare levy on incomes less than $28,984 but is eligible for additional family assistance right up to $30,350.From June next year, they will be eligible for family assistance right up to $34,200 a year. So, even with the Medicare levy exemption, a lot of families and around one in nine individual taxpayers who are regarded as low income earners by the rest of the tax and social security system are caught up in what is supposed to be an above average income earner's HECS tax surcharge. The Medicare levy exemption picks up only 70,000-odd of the 929,000 taxpayers eligible for the low income earner's tax rebate, so there is a clear need for further movement in this area.As an interim measure, to start reducing what is a grossly unfair impost on those who are clearly low income earners, the Democrats are proposing some measures to take effect with this bill to exclude from HECS repayments those people who are clearly recognised as low income earners. They include those taxpayers who receive the low income earner's tax rebate, which cuts out at $24,450, and those who receive additional family assistance, which commences cutting out at around $23,000. This is only an interim measure but, given that this bill will require employers to change their tax repayments to the HECS scheme, it strikes us as a logical time to do it. I commend the amendment to the Senate.21:33:003453Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Amendment No. 13, proposed by the Australian Democrats, seeks to raise the threshold which determines when a person is required to make a compulsory repayment under the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The government rejects this amendment. The A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998 closes the loophole which allows taxpayers to defer their HECS repayments through aggressive salary repackaging. This is done by adding reportable fringe benefits to the HECS threshold amount. The proposed amendment effectively defeats the bill's intention by basing the threshold on the low income earner's rebate, which does not include in its income test any reportable fringe benefits. Basing the threshold on certain social security payments will have a similar but lesser effect. We do not propose to support the amendment moved by the Democrats.21:34:003453Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The amendment to subsection 106Q(7) of the Higher Education Funding Act 1998 deals with the repayment threshold for Higher Education Contribution Scheme debts. In 1996 the coalition lowered the repayment threshold from average weekly earnings to $20,700. After indexation, this amount is now $21,334. However, people who are entitled to pay no Medicare levy or a reduced amount of Medicare levy are exempted from HECS repayments. This means that certain people who have or had a spouse are not required to make HECS repayments if their family income is below $24,425 and they have no dependent children or students, and up to $35,777 for five children. The family income limits are higher for additional children.My understanding of the Democrats amendment is that it seeks to make further changes to the threshold using the same principle—that is, exempting from HECS repayments some people whose income is over the base repayment threshold but who are entitled to certain tax rebates or social security payments. I note that, while the amendments before us refer to `additional family payment', under the Social Security Act there is nothing called `additional family payment'. I therefore assume that what is meant here is the maximum level of family allowance.The opposition's views on the coalition government's changes to HECS are well known. At last year's election, Labor committed itself to raising the repayment threshold by $1,000 each year from the year 2000. Labor remains committed to the reform of HECS, as outlined in the speech on 16 March by the Leader of the Opposition. A policy review process was set in train following the election, and consideration of changes to HECS will be part of that process. In the meantime, we are not prepared to support random changes to HECS until the opposition has completed its own policy review process on the issue of HECS and higher education more generally.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—For the purpose of the Hansard record, I want to correct something that was said earlier. The chair received advice that a postponement motion was not subject to debate. The fact is that he was wrongly advised, and it is subject to debate.Amendment not agreed to.21:37:003454Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—As a result of that loss and the earlier loss, I withdraw Democrat amendments 14 to 27.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now go back to postponed government amendments Nos 14 and 15.21:37:003454Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I said that I would seek some further matters to put before the chamber in the light of the questions that Senator Murray asked. I said, as I looked around to my left, that we obviously needed some additional advice on the matters that Senator Murray raised. I have now obtained that advice, which I will relay to the chamber. This measure will greatly assist employers in minimising their compliance costs. This is a very vital aspect. If these amendments do not pass, employers will need to have systems in place in two days time, on 1 April, to issue early group certificates. I think everyone in this chamber would recognise that that is an impossibility and would be seen to be quite unreasonable.In my previous answer, I think I indicated a qualification that I needed to seek additional advice—that the preliminary advice was uncertain. Nonetheless, I relayed that to the chamber and agreed to seek confirmation of the advice. Because of the complexity of the question—an appropriate question, nonetheless—it was appropriate that we should provide appropriate advice. Senator Murray, I can now confirm that if an employee leaves employment after 1 April in a year, they may not receive their group certificate until 14 July the following year. I think that was the point you were making. However, I am advised that in fact there are very few employees who actually request early group certificates. My understanding is that this is not a usual circumstance. But as I said, in the drafting of this bill, it is important that this amendment proceeds because, if it does not, we may be faced with the circumstances that employers may need to have systems in place in two days to issue early group certificates. I do not think anyone in this chamber would want that or would think that is reasonable.21:40:003455Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In another place at another time I mentioned to Senator Cook that in the film The Shawshank Redemption the word `obtuse' was used. As a consequence, the person who used that word went into solitary confinement for two months. So with some trepidation I suggest to you that I might be being a little obtuse in this, but follow me with this and see why I am wrong. In section (5GC)(b) on page 19 of the bill, and in the amendment to (5GC)(b), it says:The employer must give the employee 2 copies of the completed form no later than:(b) 14 July in the calendar year—that is, 14 July 1999—after the calendar year in which the employee ceased to be employed by the employer.That is, after 1998. That means to me that you could lose your job on 2 January 1998 and only get your group certificate on 14 July 1999. All I want to see is your amendment say that, if you lost your job on 2 January, you would get your certificate by 14 July. If you lost your job on 1 July, you would get your certificate by the following 14 July. That is what I am trying to get you to give me back. I do not think the amendment says that, and the reassurance you gave me did not do that. I am not going to suggest to you how to phrase it, and I have no objection to you amending it on the run. But, frankly, the longest period under your suggestion that anybody would be without a group certificate should be no less than 364 days plus 14. So if you lost your job on 1 July 1998, you would get your certificate by 14 July 1999. If you lost your job on 1 January 1998, you would get your certificate by 14 July 1998.21:43:003455Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I would like to add to that, too, so that we can get it all on the record at the same time. If Senator Murray is obtuse and is headed for solitary confinement for two months, then I am equally obtuse and I guess I am headed there as well. I do not know if we are going to share the same cell, Senator Murray, but then it would not be solitary confinement. We could probably rewrite the tax act while we were there.Minister, you concluded your remarks in addressing the reasons why you supported the government's amendment by saying that it would be unreasonable to inconvenience employers to alter their systems within two days to be in a position to act as we suggested earlier they would be able to act if this amendment were not passed. That is what I understood you to say. Against that, you have to balance the fact that their systems are in place now for the law as it is now and that that does not, therefore, require them to do anything. Rather than inconvenience them, it seems to me that it conveniences them to defeat the government amendment. Maybe I am obtuse as well, but you might just address that point, too.21:44:003455Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am seeking some further advice for Senator Murray. My understanding is that we are talking about a limited period from 1 April. You referred to someone who, for example, left on 1 January and your question was: when would that person be required to receive a group certificate?I have some good news for Senator Murray. We are always happy at this time of the evening to provide good news. The advice I have received is that, if the individual leaves employment on 1 January, the group certificate will be issued by 14 July in the same year.21:47:003455Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Minister, you said that employers would have to be prepared within two days if the amendment was defeated. But what employers have had notice of is the bill that your amendment is amending. If they know anything, they know that. In planning their preparation to conform with the law, they have planned in those terms.I do not know when other members in this chamber first saw your amendment, but we saw it perhaps two days ago—very recently. No-one out there in the business world can even know that this amendment is there; if any do it would be very few of them. Surely it will not damage their preparation to con form with this bill, should it become law, if this amendment is defeated. It seems axiomatic. Could you comment on that?21:48:003456Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Clearly there has been some warning on this. Equally, a lot of employers would be very anxious to see the bill through. That is always the dilemma with these things. It is hard to speak for all employers. Some would have been changing their computer systems to record the new fringe benefits amounts; perhaps others would have been waiting for the bill to go through. They have complained to the government about the short time that is available. This amendment will assist them with bringing in what is a major new system.We have to recognise that we are talking about a fundamentally new system. As in all complex legislation, you have to achieve those required balances. Whereas you are saying that they would have known about this—perhaps there are some who even read the policies in the last election and who may have had a bit of a feeling this was coming—we have to recognise that this bill is just being debated at present. Equally, the government is aware of concerns among employers that there is too short a time period.Progress reported.Adjournment345610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.345621:50:003456Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I intend to devote the few minutes available to me to the coalition government's Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . That bill introduces voluntary student unionism to the Australian universities, less those in Western Australia—the progressive state—which has had voluntary student unionism for about five years. The Western Australian legislation was passed during the time that I was still serving in the state Legislative Council. There are several major myths associated with the fear of bringing in democratically proposed voluntary unionism. Part of those myths can be dispelled, if not all of them.I am not in the habit of publicising the Australian Democrats, a political party for which I do not have much time at all, let alone agreeing with what they say. But when the Australian Democrats' higher education principles were released, I found there was some common ground that I had with them. I do not know whether that is an indictment of me or whether the Australian Democrats are becoming more democratic in their old age.They have a pledge to decrease student fees and charges. They have a pledge to enhance access to higher education. They also have a belief that students must be able to control their own affairs. They support the incubus of compulsory student unionism, however, which is contradictory to those beliefs.I can only come to the conclusion that they do not really mean it. If those three points were introduced, do they agree with some universities introducing and following through on the idea that degrees will not be granted unless student fees with respect to their guilds are paid? What VSU does is reduce barriers to higher education. It removes a compulsory up-front fee. It does not necessarily remove fees but it removes the compulsion to pay fees. It gives students freedom of choice to control their own affairs. That is not a bad start to democracy in tertiary education. And it puts power back into the hands of the students. It gives them the taste of power for their future lives. It recognises that students are sensible, intelligent and responsible enough to decide for themselves in a democratic process how their money is to be spent. What we don't say is that student unions, or any other union in Australia, should be outlawed. What we do say, however, is that if students want to join a union they can. We are not saying: do without unions. We don't say that in the work force. We don't say that either in the Western Australian legislation. But we do say that in this enlightened world students should have a choice as to whether they join a union or not.I understand what the reason is behind compulsory unionism in tertiary institutions. It gives the socialists—that is, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats—who want to inculcate a culture of compulsion in unions the start to put that in the minds of tertiary students. In some cases this carries on, of course, throughout their adult life. What that does is give the Bill Keltys, Bob Hawkes and Paul Keatings of this world a great advantage, and that is the culture of compulsory unionism—no ticket, no start. That is not what a modern world is about; that is not what Australia is about.Let me draw a distinction between the legislation passed under the Victorian model, which used the term `voluntary student representation', or VSR, and the voluntary student unionism of Western Australia: a model which the coalition government's legislation superimposes from Western Australia, where it has been in now for five years. The Victorian model draws an artificial distinction between essential services and non-essential services. Under VSR, the Victorian model, a compulsory fee is still collected to fund those activities deemed non-political. We do not think that is good enough. Who is to decide what is political and what is non-political? We want students throughout Australia to decide for themselves whether or not they join a union with respect to their tertiary education.Myth 2 is that, under the VSU, organisations and services will cease to exist. That is the big bogy. Of course, it does not happen. Let me have a look at some of the things at UWA. Voluntary unionism is five years old there. Cards are still available at Steve's Nedlands Park Hotel. You get a bar discount, you get a Steve's cafe discount and you get a bottle shop discount. The Grosvenor Hotel has discounts and the Metropolis Hotel has discounts. It goes on. There is a whole list of discounts that the student guild still runs. There are nightclub discounts. To change tack, the guild sells discounted clothing and merchandise. The guild runs a copy centre. The guild runs a second-hand bookshop. It sells cards, gifts and stationery. It runs a University of Western Australia tavern. It runs a guild market. It provides Hostelling International membership. It runs dry-cleaning. It runs Talking Heads hair design. It runs a campus pharmacy and eye-care centres. It runs a travel agency. It even runs American Express at a discount. It runs boat trips to Rottnest Island at a discount. It has got live jazz in Cafe Acorn. It has got Winthrop Australia, which is a computer shop that the guild also runs. Don't tell me that services have dropped off.Okay, you say, that is UWA, which is a fairly distinctive, perhaps top end of the street university and is one of the best universities in Australia. But look at the Student Guild at Curtin that everyone said would collapse. It has membership benefits. It has student assistance with respect to making life at university better. It offers campus services, clubs and activities, housing and the Guild Council. It connects with overseas student bodies. It has the Curtin Postgraduate Association. It runs a bookshop and it runs a paper—all funded by the voluntary contributions of students. It offers bookshop vouchers, discounted parking permits and accident insurance. It runs clubs and societies vouchers. It runs free entry to guild shows. It runs a copy centre, a sports store and a tavern. It runs all these things that people like those opposite, the socialists in this chamber, said would collapse. They did not collapse.Some of the credit for the introduction to Western Australia of the VSU, which was ultimately copied by the federal government because they could not improve on it, must go to the present Minister for Tourism and Mines, the Hon. Norman Moore, in the Legislative Council of Western Australia. He was assisted by Mark Dale, who is currently president of the national body of the Young Liberal movement in Australia, the Young Conservative movement. They put it together in 1994, and it is that system that the coalition government in the Commonwealth has decided to use, because it works; we know it works.I do believe that one of the things that we can do for youth today, in particular youth in tertiary education stepping out into life—a quantum leap from secondary education—is show them that democracy means the freedom to choose. I think it is a great indictment of universities and of previous governments that they did not allow students to choose when it was a formative area of their lives. What the coalition government is doing is giving students choice to join or not to join.345822:00:003458Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The powers of a president as proposed for the republic deserve to be addressed more fully than they have been to date. The Constitution of this country is high law. It is the highest law we have and the people who decide on it are the High Court. There are many powers that reside with the monarch which have not yet been tested in the High Court. And there are those who believe that convention can overtake the law which is extant in our Constitution. I think that is an untested proposition.I want to address in this speech the so far rarely debated question of the proper powers that will attach to the office of the Australian president, if there is to be one, under the bipartisan republican model. I further want to draw to the Senate's attention some of the contradictions of that model with reference to the theory and practice of the exercise of presidential power.The existing Australian Constitution vests considerable express powers in the formal head of state, the monarch—the Queen. Most of these are of little or no practical application today. One power that still has practical application, however, is that of the appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General. This power is very much alive. This power is exercised on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. Notwithstanding such advice, however, the Queen retains by Constitutional Convention and practice—in Bagehot's words—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. Thus, when the Prime Minister says `jump' in relation to his or her advice to the Queen with regard to appointment or dismissal, the Queen has every right to ask not how high but instead `Why?' and `Is this the best course of action?'A brief look at recent political history is instructive over the potential role of the Queen. In 1975, for example, had then Prime Minister Whitlam sought the removal of Governor-General Kerr prior to Kerr's dismissal of the government, the Queen would have been under no obligation in law to act without delay. This could potentially have given Kerr the necessary time to remove the government before the Queen acted on Whitlam's advice. Subsequent claims by some commentators that Prime Minister Whitlam was simply not quick enough to phone are therefore clearly erroneous. Such action by the Queen as our head of state, based on convention, would not be justiciable. The Prime Minister, in other words, was and currently is hampered in simply getting in first to dismiss the Governor-General in a similar constitutional crisis. The Queen does have power.This admittedly odd structural arrangement has the advantage of providing a safety net, albeit an autocratic one, in allowing the removal of a government that, for example, was—in the opinion of the Governor-General—acting in the most serious manner against the national interest. This arrangement gives the Governor-General breathing space to exercise a reserve power without the danger of being dismissed beforehand.Consider a situation where a Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the lower house but where another member could command such confidence. But the Prime Minister, in an effort to prevent the other side of politics from gaining power, goes to the Governor-General advising a dissolution under section 5 of the Constitution. In such a situation, it is imperative that the Governor-General have the power to refuse such a dissolution and instead appoint the alternative government. Thus the current mechanism whereby the Governor-General can contemplate the exercise of reserve powers without fear of instant dismissal is a mechanism that must be retained, although obviously not in its now autocratic form. The parliament should therefore give serious consideration to the provision of such a safety net for the proposed president.The government's exposure draft for the republic, however, would increase executive power by destroying this safety net. It does this by enabling the Prime Minister to dismiss the president without delay, thus stripping the president of the capacity to exercise his/her reserve powers first. That is clearly a shift in power from the monarch and the Governor-General to the Prime Minister. These reserve powers, as carried across from our present constitutional arrangements, are those that are thought to be exercisable under certain conditions at the Governor-General's own discretion. Four are usually cited as falling within this category: one, the power to appoint the Prime Minister; two, the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and therefore the government; three, the power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives under section 5 or both houses under section 57; and, four, the power to force a dissolution of the House of Representatives.But under the exposure draft, the Prime Minister can simply pre-empt the proper presidential exercise of a reserve power. Where a Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the lower house, the Prime Minister—rushing to the phone—could dismiss the president instantly and prevent the appointment of an alternative government. This would throw our system of government into disarray. In effect, the reserve powers would become of historical interest only. In a scenario where the government was acting to the serious detriment of the nation, Australia would be plunged into a constitutional crisis with more grave implications than 1975.Some might think that the scenarios I have portrayed are far-fetched in such a supposedly stable system of government as ours. But to those people I say: who could have predicted the events of 1975? Senators must understand that the integrity of constitutional structures are put to the test not in everyday affairs, but in precisely the sorts of crises that I have adverted to.It is in these extreme situations that we find out whether our founding document has what it takes to protect our system of government from the unscrupulous and the power hungry. That is why I so persistently and consistently rail against the creation of what is an executive republic, against the moving of powers from the monarch and the Governor-General to the Prime Minister. The government's model must therefore be modified to allow a proper role for the exercise of presidential reserve powers. The most meritorious option to achieve this is to require that, in any case where the Prime Minister wishes to dismiss the president or where the president wishes to exercise a reserve power by acting against the advice of the Executive Council, the action be first ratified by a majority of each house of the federal parliament sitting separately.This would have the considerable benefit of, firstly, giving to the parliament—which is the elected representative body of the Australian people—the power to confirm or deny the propriety of the proposed action. Secondly, it would ensure that, even under the bipartisan republican model, Australia would take on more of the character of a parliamentary republic, as opposed to the proposed executive republic. Thirdly, it would go some way toward diluting the inordinate power proposed to be given to just two office holders in our system of government and instead would distribute it more evenly within this system. That is, parliament would gain a sovereign position not only as the elected body of the populace but, importantly and properly, as a directing hand in times of constitutional conflict.It is my opinion that the senators and parliamentarians give up their duty to the Australian people if they accept the executive republic which is being proposed to us at present. I think it is a perfectly legitimate view to take that some would prefer a parliamentary republic to a directly elected, popular republic. I can understand that difference. But to allow a change of our system which would increase the power of the executive and put at risk the sovereign rights of the people and the protections within our existing system is very dangerous for our society and needs to be resisted. It is for that reason that I raise the issues of the actual powers of the monarch, particularly with regard to appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General.345922:09:003459O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—As we sit here tonight, half a world away the Balkans is again aflame. Honourable senators would be aware from news coverage that horrific acts of brutality are now taking place in the area of Kosovo. The BBC reports that, for example, 60,000 refugees had streamed from Kosovo into Albania since Saturday. The British Foreign Secretary said this evening that refugees are being herded into concentration areas and that a sterile zone 10 kilometres wide has been established inside the borders of Kosovo. Elsewhere there are other frightening reports.NATO itself believes that as many as half a million people out of a population of two million are displaced. There are reports of 20,000 people in the town of Drenica being crowded onto trucks and taken away to unknown destinations. In Montenegro, refugees arriving in the city of Pec say that young men are being rounded up and taken away and that atrocities are occurring on a daily basis.How, at the end of the 20th century, could this nightmare be repeated in Europe? The reason this nightmare is being repeated in Europe is that a massive miscalculation was made by President Clinton and others in NATO—a miscalculation on a scale which will leave unutterable terror for many people. The miscalculation was simply this: NATO and President Clinton believed that a war could be waged by air power alone and that a war would be waged without sending troops onto the ground.On 25 March, President Clinton said that troops would not be necessary to ensure security in Kosovo, a claim he repeated yesterday. Yet, immediately the international observers left and the air strikes began, the real need for troops on the ground became apparent—because it is very clear that Serb forces have now taken this opportunity to round up their ethnic enemies and commit acts of atrocity and barbarity upon them. This happened because a fatal mistake was made. It happened because NATO, in their arrogance, thought that they could fight a war and not shed any of their own blood. The tragic consequence is that it is the blood of innocent people that is being shed at this very moment.There are now frightening reports that a group of Serbian paramilitaries active in Bosnia—a group called the Tigers and led by a man known as Arkan—are once again waging the policy of ethnic cleansing, this time in Kosovo. And all without anybody to save these innocent people; all without even a person to observe the atrocities that are being committed. But we do not need to see the innocents executed to know that a monstrous evil, on a scale not seen since the long night of Nazi tyranny in Europe, is once again at hand.The mistake having been made, the question is: how do we rectify it? The great dilemma now facing NATO and the Western world is surely that to stop the air war now would mean that Milosevic and the people like him who wish to wage ethnic war will have won, their capacity to continue to commit atrocities will be unblunted. But to blunder on, without clear plans, will inevitably mean—barring some fortuitous circumstance in between—that troops in Western Europe will be inexorably sucked into an abyss of ill-planned involvement, sucked into involvement without any clear objectives.The danger this poses to the security of the Western world is this: if there are no clear objectives and troops get committed to the ground, then there is no way of containing the war, and containment of this conflict is absolutely critical. I remind honourable senators that 80 years ago a failure to contain a similar conflict in this very area of the world precipitated the First World War. It is incumbent upon the wise heads of the Western world to now formulate a plan as to how this conflict will be brought to an end. But it must be brought to an end in a way which ensures the safety and security of people who, but a couple of weeks ago, were living in their own homes. It must be brought about in a way in which there will be security, safety, and some chance of real life for those displaced people.It is not an easy task and we must remember that peace was never won through temerity. Yet the West seems to be involved at the moment in a plan of cringing reluctance to pursue objectives with the conviction needed to succeed. In short, the West has embarked upon a very dangerous course of conduct indeed. The reason I stand here tonight is that I believe it is incumbent upon those of us who are in a position to lend some moral guidance—albeit from afar—to do so. We cannot stand by, now that this situation has been precipitated, and do nothing. We must urge the formulation of a plan to end the conflict.I conclude with the simple thought that right now the very moral fabric of the Western world stands adjudged. If the Western world lacks a commitment to deal with this matter decisively, then I fear that history will be a very harsh judge indeed.346122:18:003461Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise again tonight to speak on the issue of electromagnetic radiation. The subject has not received much attention here in Australia of late, even though right now Standards Australia through its TE7 committee is considering relaxing the current standard—a matter I will return to a little later. There is however a great deal of action overseas. According to the World Health Organisation report, this is one of the four most important global issues.British and European parliaments are currently debating whether or not there is enough evidence to support prudent avoidance principles and policies. The sitings of cellphone towers in many countries in Europe, in the US, South Africa and South America continue to be flashpoints for community anger and frustration.The Italian health minister is expected to call for a prudent avoidance policy when the European Union meets again in June, and the EU has called for the labelling of mobile phones as potential health hazards. In the UK, parliamentarians have criticised the government's telecommunications legislation as being too much `weighted in favour of industry and not of the environment'. Labour and Liberal Democrat members have said that the government would be `foolish to rule out the possibility of a health risk from radio frequency-microwave radiation'.In Austria late last year, 16 of the top scientists in the area signed the Vienna Declaration, which recognises that low intensity microwaves can cause biological effects or damage to humans. In Salzburg, the public health department has adopted an interim public exposure standard based on a study that showed adverse health effects from mobile phones on sleeping subjects. They have consequently introduced a standard that is 2,000 times stricter than the Australian one.A South African mobile phone company has been the first in the world to offer its 112,000 staff a free radiation shield. And in that country, a long-term mobile user who has a brain tumour is bringing legal action against the industry. In England, a legal firm is acting on behalf of 24 brain tumour victims.In the US, a number of community groups, including the Communications Workers of America, supported by 22 doctors, have filed a suit against the Federal Communications Commission alleging that the guidelines fail to protect public health and the environment from harm.In Sweden, the Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry organisation has published a new booklet entitled Hypersensitive in IT Environments to advise their work force on how to deal with emerging problems of electroradiation. A recent British study shows that mobile phone radiation stimulates a morphine-like chemical in the brain. As cancer is recognised as being triggered by endocrine system imbalances, the long-term ramifications of these results might be considerable.It has come to my attention that birds too are affected by electromagnetic radiation. In the US recently, thousands of homing pigeons have been lost, with pigeon racing clubs claiming mobile phone infrastructure as the cause. The Washington Post reported last October that, of the 1,800 birds competing in a 200-mile race, 1,500 failed to return. In another race, 700 out of 900 went missing. In a 350-mile race, the number lost was 1,000 out of 1,200.Clubs are saying that such losses are extraordinary, but have been on the increase over the past few years. Ireland has also recently reported similar occurrences quoting pigeon club authorities as saying that the problem of lost birds has worsened as satellite television and mobile communications networks in the state have developed. New Zealand has had similar problems.In the US, organisations are also saying that wild geese no longer fly in their characteristic V-formation and, back home, members of the Victorian Homing Association have told my office that the 700-mile race to Queensland has experienced unexplained losses in recent years. They have also noticed that birds are more likely to be lost if they fly through areas where there are significant numbers of mobile phone towers as opposed to flying across the desert.As senators will be aware, birds navigate by means of magnetic particles in the brain, so it stands to reason that they will be vulnerable to the changes in electromagnetic environments. The implications are not just serious for pigeon fanciers; presumably, migratory birds are also having difficulty with navigation. It is quite possible that preserving important wetlands, through the Ramsar convention, is not going to be enough to protect these migratory water birds.You would expect the federal government to be interested in these phenomena, and I hope we do not get the usual dismissive jokes from Senator Alston about mice or, in this case, birds and mobile phones, because the wireless communications industry is moving very quickly to flood the air spaces with low level microwaves and flood the market with equipment which exceeds current Australian standards.As we found out last year, the Australian Communications Authority does not have the capacity to check mobile phones for compliance with our standards and certainly no-one is going around testing mobile phone tower emissions. Nevertheless, all of our mobile phones are made overseas and there is a push to relax the standards so that we can have uniform worldwide compliance and, therefore, no need for us to be embarrassed about our inability to insist on compliance.As Stewart Fist commented in the Australian two weeks ago, our standards have little to do with anything but heat emissions in any case and they fail to recognise radio frequency microwave radiation emissions as having any biological effects. You could argue that a standard which is anyway measuring the wrong thing is not worth fighting to retain. The CSIRO argues strongly that it is, because at least there is some brake on the energy that can be put to your brain. As I see more and more executives talking into microphones dangling under their chin, with their mobile phone held at a distance, I think we all know that there is more to fear than a phone warming up your cheekbone.For the past couple of months, government and the industry have been trying very hard to relax Australia's radio frequency microwave public exposure standard. Standards Australia informed its TE7 committee just last week that it would upgrade the standard. The committee has struck a bit of bother because the community reps on the committee, the unions and the CSIRO cannot be persuaded by industry to support the move. In spite of the fact that the committee is stacked with industry and government, they need an 80 per cent vote in favour to adopt a new standard, which they did not get when the question was put to the vote.The ACA has intervened and last week threatened these reluctant members that it would be obliged to step in by mid-April, saying that its preferred option is the adoption of the new standard. It argues that the old standard will shortly expire and that this is the only sensible course of action. I have commented in this place before tonight that there is no longer any justification for industry to dominate standard setting. We are not talking here about component parts like nuts and bolts being standardised so that they fit together. The many people who are experiencing effects from using mobile phones are worried not about whether the phone has standard features but whether it is slowly damaging their brain.As it stands at the moment, the standard setting process in Australia for telecommunications is not precautionary and is not in the best interests of health, and most people know that. The ACA and the industry should not be allowed to relax our standards until they are able to convince our pre-eminent scientific body, the CSIRO, and ordinary citizens on the committee that it is the right thing to do.346322:27:003463Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Tonight I want to talk about the death of a hero. Dr Michael Aris was a humanitarian academic, a Tibetan specialist and the husband of Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.Dr Aris passed away on Saturday, 27 March. His illness was brought to international attention by the Burmese military regime's refusal to allow Dr Aris to visit Daw Suu Kyi in Burma before he became too seriously ill to travel. Dr Aris had been applying for a visa for the past three years, even when he was not aware of his illness. In recent months, however, the requests became urgent. Even when he was ill, he did not pressure Daw Suu Kyi to leave Burma to visit him in Oxford because he respected and supported the immense and unwavering responsibility which she has for her country and its people.The story of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Dr Michael Aris is one of commitment, sacrifice, courage and love. They were married in 1972 and they have two children, Alexander and Kim, both now in their 20s, and both cut off from their mother for years because of the actions of the Burmese military regime. These young men cannot visit their mother in Burma because the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, will not allow them to. Daw Suu Kyi will not leave Burma because the SPDC has made undertakings to her in the past about her freedom of movement but each time has reneged on its promises. The SPDC now tell Suu Kyi that she may leave Burma to attend her husband's funeral. She feels she cannot because she would not be allowed to return. In this, as in so many things, the SPDC cannot be trusted.Dr Aris died on his 53rd birthday. It also happened to be the Myanmar National Army Day—Tatmadaw Day—a day when the army parades its strength, and did so with 6,000 troops taking to the streets in what has become an annual part of the military's intimidation tactics. Ironically, the day was originally called Resistance Day, and was meant to be a day of celebration for the Burmese people to celebrate the struggle of the Burmese people against Japanese occupation in World War Two. Now it serves to remind of the struggle of the Burmese people against another kind of occupation—that of their own military junta.The opposition—the National League for Democracy—of which Daw Suu Kyi is the leader issued a statement calling for unity and restoration of democracy in Burma. In doing so, they are also pleading for the support of the international community for their cause—the protection of human rights and the restoration of democracy.The military was also condemned by the national coalition government of the Union of Burma, which comprises members of parliament who were driven into exile after the military refused to honour the result of the 1990 national election which Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won in a landslide victory. Australia is now home to several of those exiled members of parliament.We take our democracy so much for granted in this country that we just cannot conceive of what it must be like to actually win government and never be allowed to govern. More than that, just because you are a member of the political party successful in an election, you are subject to torture, imprisonment, arbitrary detention and persecution.Daw Suu Kyi enjoys overwhelming support from the Burmese people, and from the international community. She lives a restricted life of virtual house arrest and has done for many years. The military have used many strategies to attempt to force her to give up her struggle. Through all this, and for the whole of their life together, Michael Aris was unfailingly understanding and supportive of her. International human rights groups, the President of the United States and the United Nations Secretary-General have all condemned the military's decision not to grant a visa to Dr Aris to enable him and his sons to visit Suu Kyi. I am concerned, however, that the Australian government seems to be wavering in its resolve to support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the properly elected government of Burma.It concerns me that the minister recently criticised the European Union for maintaining the policy prohibiting visits by Burmese military ministers and also that Australia broke ranks with other Western nations by attending a controversial narcotics conference held in Rangoon at ambassadorial level, not just at the law enforcement level, as originally offered as justification. I hope that the government is not weakening Australia's position on Burma. I believe now is the time for it to clarify that policy.Dr Aris last saw his wife in January 1996. After that, the Burmese SPDC repeatedly denied him a visa, even when they knew he was dying. He was reported to have been willing to die in Rangoon, if he could just have seen his beloved Suu one more time. It is too late now for a husband and wife to be united, but it is not too late for a mother to be reunited with her sons. The SPDC should, of course, immediately grant visas to Alexander and Kim Aris to visit their mother at this most tragic time for their family.Michael was one of a group of distinguished scholars who focused on the humanitarian aspects of Buddhism and the history ofparts of South Asia. He was the gentle scholar and she was the political activist. His great love for his wife drew him into the role of her spokesman, and an unwavering supporter of the rights of the Burmese people.The situation in Burma is just as awful as that in Serbia. Australia must look closely at our own actions in relation to Burma, and our own failure to influence change there. We send our condolences to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her two sons, Alexander and Kim, and we hope that the SPDC can be prevailed upon to at least allow them to be together at this very sad time.22:33:003465Senate adjourned at 10.33 p.m.Documents34653465The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Broadcasting Services Act—Commercial Television Conversion Scheme 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendment of section 82, dated 25 March 1999. Exemptions Nos CASA 09/1999-CASA 12/1999. Instrument No. CASA 73/1999.Export Control Act—Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Health Insurance Act—Declaration—QAA No. 1/1999.National Rail Corporation Agreement Act—Agreement between Commonwealth of Australia, State of New South Wales, State of Victoria, State of Queensland, State of Western Australia and State of South Australia—Third Amending Agreement, dated 22 March 1999.