1999-03-313912SENATE354501999-03-31The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous3545Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999.Bills3545s206Billss208Billss207Billss205Billss2113545Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991, and for related purposes; a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes; a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes; a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes; and a bill for an act to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979, and for related purposes.09:32:003545Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to ask the minister why those two bills which are subject to the cut-off order are being promulgated at this stage.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is just introducing them. They will all be automatically adjourned at the appropriate stage but they have to be introduced before the cut-off can operate. You have a valid proposition, but we have not got to the point yet.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.354509:36:003545Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1999These amendments implement recommendations arising from several reviews which are part of a package of reforms which serve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the food regulatory system for Australia and New Zealand. These reviews are the National Competition Policy Review of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 (the act), the Review of the State and Territory Food Acts and the Food Regulation Review.This bill amends the act in four major ways:- it creates objectives for the act and clarifies the role, functions and regulatory objectives of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (the Authority);- it provides the Authority with more flexibility and efficiency in its consultation and decision making processes;- it enables the Authority to more effectively protect public health and safety and the prevention of misleading and deceptive behaviour; and- it allows the Authority to charge for services in certain circumstances.I will deal with each of these aspects of the bill separately.Firstly, the bill includes an overall objective for the act in order to provide public transparency and accountability and a concise statement of the role of the Authority. Both the new overall objective and the recast section 10 objectives ensure that public health and safety and the protection of consumers remain the highest priorities of the Authority.It will now be explicit that the Authority must consider the costs and benefits of the various regulatory alternatives that are available. Food standards should not impose undue costs on the food industry or the community.The bill will also provide for greater consistency and co-operation at the Commonwealth level and between the Commonwealth and States and Territories in relation to food regulatory issues.The Authority's need to undertake activities that support and improve the quality of food standards is also recognised in the bill. These activities include being an advocate for Australians in the international arena, facilitating industry guidelines and coordinating national work on auditing systems and training competencies.I now turn to the second major aspect of the bill. It allows the Authority to be more responsive to community concerns about particular standards issues and develop tailored consultation arrangements for individual issues.Over the years, the Authority has been locked into rigid and sometimes ineffective consultation processes. Regardless of the good intention behind some of these prescriptive requirements in the current act, it is clear that taxpayers' money has at times been wasted through excessive consultation on very minor issues. These amendments will allow the Authority to tailor consultation processes, allocate more resources where there are significant concerns and streamline processes for minor issues whilst still ensuring that stakeholders have maximum opportunity to provide input on issues that affect them.In having more flexibility to respond to consultation needs, the Authority will be more accountable to its stakeholders. It will need to prepare, in advance, plans which clearly set out the proposed consultation processes for each standard it develops or amends. It will need to discuss these with key stakeholder groups and ensure that no affected parties are overlooked.Also included in the bill are amendments that will enable the Authority to deal more efficiently with less significant standards issues. Where the draft standards raise issues of minor significance or complexity, and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council has approved a general approach to be applied in such cases, the Authority will have power to decide not to make a recommendation to Ministers in relation to the approval of particular food standards. The Council will have the power to overrule these decisions, which would then be dealt with by the Council in the usual manner; otherwise, the decisions will stand as if they were decisions of the Council.The act currently requires literally every detail of all proposed changes and additions to the Food Standards Code to be considered by all ten Ministers, even where they have already set down clearly the approach they wish to apply. This delays the process of making necessary but minor changes and wastes the time of Ministers when other more important food policy issues are waiting for their consideration. This amendment redresses that problem and should benefit both industry and consumers by significantly decreasing the time taken to make minor changes or additions to the Food Standards Code.The third major amendment is to permit the Authority to more effectively protect public health and safety and prevent misleading and deceptive behaviour by allowing effective implementation and enforceability of the new food safety standards and permitting the restriction of sale and advertising of foods where necessary to protect public health. The bill also permits the Authority to require the approval of specific brand or patented products for certain classes of food so as to ensure the safety and appropriate labelling of such products before their release onto the market.I now turn to the final aspect of the bill. At present, the Authority is obliged, by its legislation, to process all applications on a `first come—first served' basis, regardless of the degree of public health and safety and consumer protection involved. This can draw resources away from standards work that protects public health and safety and into minor matters of little significance to the community.One multinational company has lodged a total of eleven separate applications to achieve a succession of minor variations in the approval of a particular product for which it had patent rights. This imposed multiple processing costs on the public, at no extra cost to the company. In so doing it diverted the Authority's resources away from more socially important work to ensure that those applications were resolved within the statutory twelve months.The Authority will now be able to ensure that its resources are primarily directed towards the protection of public health and safety. These amendments (which were previously contained in the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1996, which lapsed during 1998) will enable the Authority to:- prioritise and direct resources to its agreed work program, and to the food standards matters which are of major public interest; and- charge for those applications which are outside the work program where there is a commercial benefit to the particular applicant inherent in the application.The selection of applications for inclusion in the work program will be based on the section 10 objectives and consultation undertaken with stakeholders. These applications will be assessed at no charge to the applicant.The proposed cost recovery arrangements are fully consistent with this Government's user pays policy. The Authority will only be able to recover its costs and will not be able to make a profit.Since the creation of the Authority in 1991 considerable progress has been made to develop uniform food standards throughout Australia and improve the safety of the Australian food supply. This package of amendments will allow the Authority to continue its reform of the food regulatory framework and develop a quality Food Standards Code which will serve Australia and New Zealand well into the next millennium.CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (TEMPORARY IMPORTATION) BILL 1999This bill amends the temporary importation provisions of the Customs Act 1901 to address 2 aspects of their operation in relation to goods imported for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Paralympic Games and a number of other related events.First, the bill sets 31 December 2000 as the last date that goods temporarily imported for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games can be exported. Second, it requires lodgement of a formal application for a temporary importation permission if goods are not accompanied by standard internationally accepted temporary admission papers.The current maximum period allowed before re-exportation under a temporary importation permission is 12 months, subject to case by case extensions. This time limit places an administrative burden on industry and Customs in applying for and processing extensions for goods imported for use at more than one of the specified events (many of which are already taking place). On the other hand, as none of the eligible events occur after December 2000, there is no need for any of the goods to remain in Australia after 31 December 2000.This bill introduces a set date of 31 December 2000 as the final date for exportation of goods imported temporarily for the purposes of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and other related events. This date will apply whether the relevant permission was granted before or after the commencement of the amendment, but is capable of being extended if, for example, genuine difficulties are encountered in arranging suitable transport within the time limit for some specialist equipment.The second aspect of the temporary importation provisions which this bill addresses relates to Customs ability to require information in relation to those goods temporarily imported. This in order to maintain an appropriate audit trail and to ensure compliance with temporary importation provisions.Generally, temporary importation permissions are granted to goods imported in accordance with the terms of international agreements on temporary importation. Eligible goods covered by agreements that Australia is a signatory to currently include motor vehicles used by private travellers, media equipment and goods for display at fairs and exhibitions.In most cases the goods are covered by temporary admission papers known as "carnets", that are issued by sponsoring organisations and take the place of formal customs import and export documents. As the current temporary importation provisions were designed with carnets in mind, goods are exempted from formal import and export entry requirements.This exemption from formal entry, however, also applies to goods imported temporarily for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and certain related events (as well as some goods under international agreements), despite the fact that they may not be accompanied by temporary admission papers.Customs currently has no legislative basis to require information to be provided in relation to these goods. This bill introduces a requirement to lodge a formal application (either by document or computer) to import goods not accompanied by temporary admission papers. This will improve Customs audit trail, assist in the acquittal of import permissions against export information, and ensure compliance with temporary importation conditions.CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to address the possible consequences of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the matter of Prechelt . The effect of this decision is that customs duty would not be payable on goods that are not required to be formally entered for home consumption.In summary, the case involved the importation of 25 cartons of cigarettes with a customs value of $180. Under the current terms of the Customs Act, such goods are not required to be formally entered for home consumption. Instead, summary information in relation to such goods is required to be given to Customs in an approved form. Goods exempt from formal entry requirements include the personal effects of passengers and crew of ships and aircraft, goods of a value of less than $1000 imported through the post and goods of a value of less than $250 consigned otherwise than through the post.The Custom Act provides that the rate of any import duty payable on goods is the rate of duty in force when the goods are entered for home consumption. For the majority of importations, a formal import entry, which details between 50 and 60 items of information in relation to the goods, is required to be lodged with Customs either by document or computer. Customs uses this information to assess the duty liability of the goods and payment is required before they can be delivered for home consumption.As the goods the subject of the decision were exempt from the formal entry requirements the court found that no rate of duty could be determined. As a rate of duty could not be fixed, the court went on to find that no duty was payable, despite the clear words of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that impose duties of customs on goods imported into Australia.General application of the reasoning in the decision would mean that no customs duty is payable on imported goods for which no entry is required.This bill proposes amendments to the Customs Act to make it clear that duty must be paid on imported goods that do not require a formal entry before those goods can be delivered into home consumption. The amendments will also provide that the rate of duty is to be fixed at the time information in relation to the goods is given to Customs or the time when the goods were imported into Australia, whichever is the later.The amendments will take effect from 1 September 1992. This is the date when the import entry processing provisions of the Customs Act were completely rewritten to allow the electronic lodgement of entries via the COMPILE computer system. As part of that exercise the replacement of a former provision that deemed goods delivered under similar permissions to be entered for home consumption was inadvertently overlooked.These amendments will confirm that the duty liability of non-entry goods imported during the intervening period was that which both the Commonwealth and importers had always understood it to be. They will impose no new duty liability on goods already imported into Australia.MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999This bill implements a number of the Government's policy initiatives within the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio. These initiatives will enhance the efficiency of the administration of the Migration Act 1958, while preserving the integrity of that act and the rights of persons affected by the provisions of the act.Schedule 1 of the bill introduces a limited code of procedures for temporary entry business sponsorships, which will provide that persons affected by these matters have an adequate opportunity to provide relevant information. These measures provide that there are effective cancellation and monitoring mechanisms to provide a balance to the streamlined temporary entry of key business personnel. The cancellation of temporary entry business sponsorships has been codified thus ensuring transparency in the process.These measures flow from recommendations made to the previous Government by the Committee of Inquiry into the Temporary Entry of Business People and Highly Skilled Specialists (the "Roach" Committee). The Roach Committee advocated a discretionary system of assessment and sanction to allow for the consideration of any breaches of the sponsors' obligations.Schedule 2 of the bill amends provisions related to the ways in which visa applications may be made. The amended provisions will prevent applicants from making applications that would necessarily be refused under current migration policy thereby saving clients time and money that would otherwise be wasted in making applications that could not succeed. Schedule 3 of the bill introduces a more flexible method of authorising persons, and classes of persons, to be officers for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958. These measures enable the authorisation of persons, and classes of persons, in an administratively straightforward manner, without reducing the obligation of the Minister to notify the authorisation in the Gazette .It is intended to ensure that the Australian community is protected from convicted criminals who may cause harm to persons within our community. Schedule 4 of the bill amends section 254 of the Migration Act 1958 to ensure that corrective service authorities can detain non-citizens who are liable for criminal deportation or removal on the completion of their prison sentence.The Government is committed to providing visa applicants with merits review of adverse decisions. Schedule 5 of the bill will ensure that applicants for permanent migrant spouse or interdependency visas have merits review rights. It will align the review of such offshore migrant visas with the current availability of merits review for onshore spouse and interdependency visa classes.Schedules 6 and 7 of the bill introduce two beneficial measures in relation to the migration program. In the early 1990s the former Government enacted provisions, under sections 86, 87 and 88, to assist in the management and control of the annual migration program. These sections allow for the setting of numerical limits or "caps" on the number of visas that can be granted in prescribed visa subclasses in any one program year.The measures introduced by Schedule 6 of this bill will allow certain applicants, who would otherwise be adversely affected by the successive caps to be granted a visa. The new provision will allow the grant of visas to certain people whose health and character checking were not completed before a cap came into effect.The other measure related to the migration program enacted by Schedule 7 of this bill is the extension from 12 months to two years for the period in which a points tested visa applicant, who has not met the prevailing pass mark but did meet the lower pool mark, may have their visa application held in reserve.Pooled Independent category applicants, who are interested in settling in regional Australia may elect to provide details of their educational qualifications and work experience for inclusion in the skill matching database. This database is a key resource for the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme and the State and Territory Nominated Independent category which are designed to encourage a wider dispersal of skilled migrant intake.The extension of the pool period will ensure that State and Territory Governments and regional employers have available to them a sufficient number of pooled applicants with a range of skills to meet identified skill shortages.Schedule 8 of the bill removes the age limitation for full-time members of the Refugee Review Tribunal in line with the Government's policy to remove the compulsory age limits for public office holders.Finally, Schedule 9 of the bill ensures that the integrity of the scheme for judicial review of immigration decision-making is maintained by treating decisions of the new Migration Review Tribunal in the same way as those made by the Immigration Review Tribunal. These amendments are only required because of the continued delays in the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 which is presently before the Senate. These amendments will ensure that the judicial review scheme in Part 8 applies to Migration Review Tribunal decisions in the event that the Judicial Review Bill is not enacted before the commencement of the Migration Review Tribunal on 1 June 1999.In conclusion, I reiterate that this bill contains measures that are beneficial to clients, whilst still ensuring that the Government's migration program is not compromised.I commend the bill to the Chamber.NORFOLK ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Norfolk Island Act 1979 introduced a form of self-government for Norfolk Island. It established and defined the responsibilities and powers of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, the Executive Council of Norfolk Island and the Administrator of Norfolk Island. The act also sets out the Commonwealth Minister's responsibilities in relation to the governance of the Territory. By way of comparison, the Norfolk Island model of self-government is broadly similar to that of the Northern Territory.The purpose of the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 is to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to alter the assent procedures for Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly Bills relating to firearms, to bring the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly's electoral provisions more into line with those of other Australian legislatures and to simplify the process of appointing the Norfolk Island Deputy Administrator.In relation to firearms, the effect of the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 is to remove the reference to firearms from Schedule 2 to the act and add a reference to firearms and ammunition to Schedule 3 to the act. The result is that the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly will retain power to legislate for firearms and ammunition, but the Administrator will be obliged to obtain the instructions of the Federal Territories Minister prior to assenting to bills or making regulations dealing with these matters. This will provide an appropriate avenue for ensuring Island compliance with the National Agreement on Firearms.On electoral matters, the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 will extend the right to vote in Legislative Assembly elections to all Australian citizens ordinarily resident on the Island, establish Australian citizenship as a qualification for enrolment and election to the Legislative Assembly, and preserve the existing enrolment rights of enrolled non-Australian citizens.Electoral provisions for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly are currently contained in the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and the Legislative Assembly Act 1979 (Norfolk Island).The Norfolk Island Act 1979 prescribes qualifications for election to the Legislative Assembly. Under existing provisions, a person can stand for election to the Assembly if he or she is aged 18 or over, is entitled to vote at elections and has been ordinarily resident on Norfolk Island for 5 years immediately preceding the date of nomination.The Legislative Assembly Act 1979 (Norfolk Island) prescribes that a person is qualified to enrol where that person has attained the age of 18 and has been present on Norfolk Island for 900 days during the period of 4 years immediately preceding their application for enrolment. This qualifying period for enrolment on Norfolk Island far exceeds the one month that applies to the Commonwealth and in all States and Territories on the mainland. Tasmania has a qualifying period of 6 months.The Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island is also the only Australian State or Territory legislative body where non-Australian citizens are entitled to enrol and stand for election.The proposed electoral amendments would bring electoral provisions prescribing enrolment and entitlement to stand for election more into line with those in all other Australian legislatures. Under the proposed provisions, only Australian citizens would be eligible to enrol and stand for election to the Legislative Assembly. An ordinarily resident qualifying period of 6 months for enrolment would also be introduced.Enrolment rights of non-Australian citizens currently on the electoral roll will be preserved. However, in the future, any candidate for election, and any person seeking enrolment, would have to be an Australian citizen.The Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 also changes the process by which the Norfolk Island Deputy Administrator is appointed. The Governor-General currently appoints the Deputy Administrator. The appointment of a Deputy Administrator is a dormant one which becomes operational in the temporary absence or incapacity of the Administrator, thus ensuring that the powers and functions of the Administrator can continue to be exercised in such circumstances. Because the appointment is held by the Official Secretary to the Administrator, and generally operates for quite short periods, it does not warrant the attention of the Governor-General. The proposed amendment provides for Norfolk Island Deputy Administrators to be appointed by the Commonwealth Territories Minister. This is consistent with provisions operating on the Indian Ocean Territories of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island to appoint Deputy Administrators.The act is proposed to take effect 28 days after it receives the Royal Assent.Financial ImpactThe proposed amendment will have no direct impact on Commonwealth revenue or outgoings.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Miscellaneous3550Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Software Depreciation) Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sitting.Committees355035503550The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—In addition to the letters previously announced, I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation in the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Substitute member: Senator Eggleston to replace Senator McGauran for the committee's estimates hearings from 4 May to 6 May 1999. Select Committee on Information Technologies Appointed: Senators Bishop, Calvert, Ferris, Lundy, McGauran, Stott Despoja and Tierney.Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Discharged: Senator McGauran Appointed: Senator Coonan.Amendment (by Senator O'Brien) agreed to:At the end of the paragraph relating to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, add the following:"Senator O'Brien to substitute for Senator Forshaw for the committee's inquiry into the roles and responsibilities of various bodies in the regulation, design and management of airspace and the decision to terminate the Class G airspace trial.".Motion, as amended, agreed to.Bills3551r706Billsr704Billsr7053551Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.09:36:003551West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—In rising to speak on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 and other appropriation bills this morning, I do so mindful of the amendment that I know my leader, Senator Faulkner, is going to move shortly when he speaks—that is, that the Senate is of the view that the $19.433 million spent on the community education and information program on the tax system is an improper use of public money. That indicates to everybody that the Labor Party has problems with and opposes the GST. But the GST information and community education program is actually bringing to the minds of people the fact that they do not like it and the fact that they have concerns.I have a letter from the North West Magazine, which is an insert magazine that goes into most of the local newspapers in the north-west of New South Wales. It is written by John Richard of Coolah. It is actually in response to a column of Senator Brownhill's on 1 March where he had written something about the Senate select committee on the GST and the impact on beef producers. Mr Richard is very concerned. He draws Senator Brownhill's attention to the submission to the Senate select committee by the Australian Beef Association on the impact of the GST on beef producers. He says:Senator Brownhill said he has "heard no compelling argument against the Government's (tax) proposals as they were originally put to the Australian people."Mr Richard goes on to say:The Australian Beef Association last week submitted that an increase in the price of meat has traditionally led to a decrease in consumption.That is something that all farmers and primary producers are certainly aware of. They know that when the price of the commodity goes up in the markets, there is a drop in consumption. That drop in consumption leads of course to a decline in the income levels of the producers. Mr Richard goes on to say:After 15 years of declining domestic consumption and low returns to producers, the ABA submission called for $200m compensation to beef producers if 10 percent GST is applied to meat.No-one has worked out the logistics of applying and collecting GST in the saleyards when exports are exempt.Which stock will go entirely into export and which stock will be broken up into domestic and export boxes?That is a very sensible and appropriate observation on behalf of Mr Richard and the Australian Beef Association. When lots go in for sale, they can be broken up or they can be sold in groups. But it is possible to sell certain stock out of the groups. Mr Richard says:Whatever the outcome, the farmer will have 10 percent discount applied to the stock in case somewhere along the line, the processor or retailer has to pay 10 percent tax.He maintains that the `buck always stops at the farm gate'. All farmers that I know of would certainly agree with him.It is of concern to those primary producers who are producing commodities that may or may not end up being for export. They do not know when they are selling or preparing their produce for export precisely in most cases if it is going to be for export or not. They therefore do not know what the impact is going to be or how the person who is buying the product from them will be dealing with the 10 per cent GST. He goes on to say:Farmers who now buy equipment sales tax exempt, will have to pay 10 percent GST and apply for the rebate. On a purchase of say, a $100,000 tractor a farmer would have to pay $10,000 GST and apply for a refund.Nobody will disagree with that. That is the correct way that a farmer is going to do it. But Mr Richard goes on to say:Farmers who have battled with Diesel Fuel Rebate for years will know how cumbersome the system is and how successive governments and self interest groups have argued that farmers should not have the `rebate'.It is not an uncommon complaint in my office from farmers and those in the primary production area that they have to remember to actually apply for the diesel fuel rebate and that they have to wait. But first of all they have had to expend the money before they can get the rebate back. That certainly has an impact upon their cash flow.Mr Richard goes on to talk about the Ralph report:. . . it not only suggests tax cuts but has many implications for family farms operated as partnerships and trusts and changes to depreciation that could impact badly on rural enterprises.Crop planting expenses to be deductible only once the crop is harvested is anomalous and treating fuel and fertiliser as trading stock would increase compliance costs.It is quite obvious from Mr Richard's letter that he has looked very closely at the changes that this government is planning with the new tax, and also as a result of the Ralph report, to see what the impact will be on those in primary production. I think it would do people the world of good to actually look more carefully at the finer detail and at the actual implementation and administration costs and pressures that this GST is going to place on primary producers. If they look more closely at the issue, they will find that the amount of book work that primary producers are going to be required to undertake will be increasing quite significantly.I would commend everybody to look at the submission of the Australian Beef Association to the select committee and also to look at Mr Richard's letter in the North West Magazine. He has outlined very clearly the issues that are of concern to people in the primary production area and in the north-west of New South Wales, who are significant producers of crops, livestock, beef and wool.While talking about the GST, it is also important to note that yesterday was very much a red-letter day in the saga of the introduction of the new tax. The government wants to call it a new tax system and gives it the acronym of ANTS. Of course, everybody in the community knows it as the GST. Yesterday we saw a media release headlined `Unprecedented church, community alliance calls for tax changes'. This is the alliance of a great number of charitable, church, community and consumer organisations who released a joint statement—and had a joint press conference—rejecting the government's tax package and calling for major changes to improve its fairness and protect those on low incomes.It is vitally important that when the government gets groups of organisations, individuals and community groups together making submissions and comments like this, it actually listens to them. This is a group of people that represents a diverse range of organisations representing a significant number of Australian people, particularly those who are less fortunate and less well provided for than the big end of town.It is important for people to recognise the signatories to the community call, as they call it, announced on 30 March 1999. They include Anglicare Australia, Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, Australian Catholic Health Care Commission, Australian Consumers Association, Australian Council of Social Service, Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Association, Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Centacare Australia, Society of St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army (Southern Command), Salvation Army (Eastern Com mand), Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, Uniting Community Services Australia and the Women's Electoral Lobby. It also includes the following organisations representing people with disabilities: Head Injury Council of Australia, National Council on Intellectual Disability, Women with Disabilities Australia, Physical Disability Council of Australia and the Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition.From listening to those names it is obvious and very apparent that they represent a significant cross-section of the service providers in the not-for-profit sector in this country. These are the people with expertise in the provision of services to people on low incomes or people with disabilities. The opinions and voices of these people should be heard and should be taken note of because they represent a significant cross-section of people. They have expertise that the government says does not matter because the government has done modelling. But we know that the government has not done GST modelling on a number of areas.It is of vital importance that the government take cognisance of the calls of these groups of people. They have concerns about the additional costs that a service charge will impose upon people. This is not just a charge on goods; this actually introduces a services charge. The individual members of these organisations are people who have a significant use for these services which, up until now, have not attracted a tax. But after the introduction of the GST they will certainly attract a tax. That is an issue of major concern.When we look at the things that the government is headstrong about doing, we also need to remember that another issue that the government has taken up with great relish is privatisation. In the first term of the government, we saw the privatisation of the first third of Telstra. We now have before us the additional sale of the remaining part of Telstra. I urge the government to closely look at the results of the election in New South Wales last Saturday. It is very clear that one of the major issues in that election was the privatisation of electricity. The ALP came out very strongly in opposition to that. That position was arrived at after a lot of input from the rank-and-file members of the ALP.The coalition went to this election with a strong policy to privatise electricity. Mind you, some of them were not totally sure about how much they were going to privatise; some thought they were not going to privatise the distribution network but they were quickly corrected on that. I think of one Richard Mutton in Dubbo who ran an ad saying that they were not going to privatise the distribution network. That caused both parties in the coalition some embarrassment when he had to be corrected. But it is very interesting to look at the results, and the results speak louder than words.In the seat of Bathurst, which has two electricity generating stations—Mount Piper and Wallerawang—we saw a swing to Labor of about 12 per cent. We took it from an ALP seat with a margin of 0.6 to one in excess of 13 per cent. It is now over 63 per cent Labor. That is an indication of what the people in New South Wales think about privatisation. I had some people say to me on Sunday that they hoped that Telstra would not be privatised because they had grave concerns about what that meant for them in the future. These are small business people. They are not from a group that this government would say were archetypical Labor Party supporters. These people are small business people. When I made the comment that I thought privatisation was a major factor in the previous day's election results, both of these people agreed with me wholeheartedly. I think the government needs to stop being so arrogant and so out of touch with what people want and recognise that the people in New South Wales spoke loud and long when the issue was placed before them as a key issue in the election campaign.We now notice from headlines appearing in regional media in New South Wales that the National Party has taken the privatisation of electricity off the agenda. I am not quite sure what the Liberal Party has done. We also see headlines where the National Party, Mr Armstrong in particular, is calling for a severing of the coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—while they are in opposition. It is pretty obvious why Mr Armstrong is calling for that, particularly when you look at the results in rural New South Wales. The National Party vote dropped markedly. It had big swings against it. On the whole, a lot of the votes went to One Nation. The Liberal and National parties need to be very careful about what is happening. They are disillusioning their voters. Their voters are turning away from them and turning to ultra right-wing parties who put forward and promote simplistic and opportunistic policies that are not necessarily in the best interests of this country. I think Mr Armstrong has become aware of the need for the National Party to renew its identity with people in rural areas.If we think there is squabbling in New South Wales between the National Party and the Liberal Party, then there is obviously a fair bit of squabbling going on within the Liberal Party. An article in a Bathurst newspaper, Western Advocate, on Monday of this week about the state election wrap-up is headlined `Berry fuming as Libs fail to back him'. The article says:The fate of the seat of Bathurst was inexorably entwined with the fate of former Liberal Party leader Peter Collins, according to local candidate David Berry.Yesterday Mr Berry laid the blame for his defeat squarely at the feet of the Liberal Party state director Remo Nogarotto.`I was pre-selected when Peter was still Opposition leader and, at that time, I was given an absolute undertaking of what the party would do for my campaign,' he said.`I was promised comprehensive resources to help wrest Labor's most marginal seat back to the Liberal fold.`I was very enthusiastic about the sort of campaign we would be able to put together, it would be a very professional effort.`Financially we would be well resourced, as well as having up to the minute details on polling, significant research available and a large number of shadow ministers touring the electorate.'Well, let me tell you there were not too many shadow ministers that came to Bathurst during this last election campaign.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I do not think it would have mattered.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—I do not think it would have mattered either, Senator Faulkner, because we had a very good candidate in the Mayor of Lithgow, who will be a credit to the Labor Party and to the district that he is going to represent. Mr Berry said he:. . . first realised something was wrong in early February, two months after Mrs Chikarovski toppled Mr Collins for the leadership, when campaign support was not forthcoming.He actually did consider resigning from the candidacy but decided not to:`It was quite apparent that none of the undertakings were going to be met and it put me in a difficult position.`I had a string of commitments that I'd identified as being great steps forward for the electorate, and I had to advance these on behalf of the party with the knowledge that they were not honouring their commitments to me.'He says he ended up running his campaign on $12,000. I think it is pretty indicative of the fact that there are problems within the party as well. As an aside, I would also say that I know that, in the Wagga Wagga campaign when a shadow minister went to visit, both the Liberal candidate and the National Party candidate turned up and because the shadow minister was a Liberal Party member, the National Party candidate was fairly unceremoniously told to make themselves scarce and go some place else. So relations within the two parties are not good and relations within the Liberal Party itself internally, I would suggest, are even worse.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Bad and getting worse.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—I think so, because Mr Berry's outburst is obviously an indication of not just sour grapes because he lost, having been a member before, but how strongly he feels about the problems there are within that party. As I have said, Mr Armstrong has said quite publicly that the Nationals should leave the Liberal Party.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Who is this Mr Berry?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I do not know. A Victorian wicket-keeper?1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—You can keep cricket out of this, Senator Faulkner, thank you. I know that you are hurting because you were unable to watch or listen to the last part of the test match in the West Indies.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Also because we lost.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—We lost, but it was not on radio after six o'clock this morning. There is also another issue that I would like to canvass, hopefully very quickly, and that is speculation in the media recently that during the Olympics regional airlines will be diverted to Bankstown airport. These rumours are alleged to have come from Commonwealth organisations. That is something that I will speak about at a later time. But I would just flag to people that, if the government think that they can get regional airlines in New South Wales landing at Bankstown airport, then they will be having a lot of trouble and a lot of complaints from the rural areas of New South Wales. It will just reinforce, in the minds of rural people, how out of touch they are with what are the needs and desires of people who live in rural Australia.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Before calling Senator Faulkner, I should inform the chamber that the cricket was in fact broadcast beyond 6 a.m. this morning.09:56:003555Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Thank you for your editorial comment, Mr Acting Deputy President. I commend the matter of public importance which will be debated in the Senate later today, for the edification of all senators and other Australians interested in these issues. Today I rise to speak on a specific appropriation in the bills before the Senate. That is the appropriation, in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99, of $19.433 million for the community education information program on the new tax system. I move:At the end of the motion, add:"but the Senate is of the view that the $19.433 million spent on the community education and information program on the tax system is an improper use of public money".I am moving this second reading amendment today because the Howard government has blatantly and deliberately misused public moneys for party political purposes. It has consciously abused the process of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration for political ends, in order to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny of the expenditure of $20 million can only be achieved after the event. Most seriously of all, the Howard government has perhaps irrevocably damaged public trust in the proper operations of the public institutions of this nation, the apolitical Public Service, reasonable expenditure of taxpayers' funds and the proper role of parliament. In our view, the Howard government should stand condemned for these deliberate acts of sabotage.In the 15 days leading up to the announcement of the federal election, the Commonwealth government spent more on their tax advertising campaign than Toyota, Coca-Cola and McDonald's combined, in a flagrant misuse of taxpayers' money for political benefit. Tracking data suggests that the television campaign alone cost more than $5 million in the metropolitan markets, but this does not count the advertisements splashed heavily in Tasmania, in the ACT and on regional networks.The heaviest bombardments were in the weeks of 13 and 23 August. In those two weeks, AIM Data, the advertising tracking agency, reveals absolute saturation in the metropolitan markets, hitting 80 per cent of the over-18 television audience three or more times a week. That was approximately 100 TV spots per week in the third week of the campaign, in all capital cities. The overall cost of TV expenditure alone could well be upwards of $8 million over the 15 days. In comparison, for the whole of August, Toyota spent around $6.9 million; McDonald's, around $5.2 million; and Coca-Cola, around $1.4 million—a monthly total by the big commercial players of around $13.5 million, and a 15-day total of $6.75 million. The government was desperately outspending three of the major commercial advertisers in Australia and using taxpayers' money to buy votes.In another critical comparison, in the lead-up to the 1996 election the Keating govern ment reduced overall government advertising expenditure to less than $3 million in the two months before the election. So much for the weak excuse of the coalition government that it was only following precedent!The television ads of people playing happy families under a new tax system were themselves bland and inaccurate, promising huge income tax cuts but failing to mention the central component of the government's proposed new tax system, the GST. These ads were backed by at least $3 million worth of newspaper advertisements and a badly organised information hotline costing at least $2 million and using public servants for party political purposes. And then, of course, there was the glossy mail-out to each household in the country. I do not think the public fully comprehends the impact of this re-election gambit by the Liberals. Nothing of this magnitude has ever before been perpetrated in Australian politics.And, of course, we have loose ends dangling everywhere. The government reluctantly admitted that it allocated $19.4 million on the promotional exercise which was blandly titled the `community education and information program'. Remember that tax reform was not a government program. It was a Liberal Party election proposal. In fact, prior to the last federal election, the parliament had not even seen the legislation. It was introduced into the Senate only on the evening of the last day of sitting, on 10 December last year.If the legislation passes the Senate, following the Senate inquiry that is under way, it may go through in an amended form—who knows? If that is the case, obviously the pre-election community information program will have been not only premature but also inaccurate. A further absurdity is that the government will not reveal its hand with business taxes until after 1 July, so there will probably be an information campaign for those changes as well.Consider a similar campaign by the Canadian government in the early 1990s, desperately throwing taxpayers' dollars into their euphemistically called `information campaign on the shift to a GST regime'. In the end, throughout the introduction and implemen tation of this regime, the Canadian government had spent $Can85 million on trying to persuade the public that their so-called reforms were a good thing. The Canadian public, I might say, were relentlessly dubious about this. There were direct mail packages to all citizens, an $11.6 million TV advertising campaign and a $6 million call centre; the costs spiralled upwards as the public became more and more dissatisfied. Of course, students of political history know the end result for the Conservatives in Canada: they were comprehensively booted out. It is also interesting to note that there was widespread support for Canadian Liberal Party senators to block the GST when it was due to go through their Senate.I was extremely concerned to hear in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that the public information campaign is still continuing. Treasury officials acknowledged that there were further components under way. The spending has not stopped. It did not stop in Canada until $Can85 million was thrown at trying to make their then government look good. How much will this sales pitch actually cost the Australian taxpayer in the end?The opposition was first informed in May 1998, by concerned departmental sources, of the GST advertising rort. After cross-examination in Senate estimates committees, officials revealed that it could cost up to $10 million. After its launch in conjunction with the GST hotline on 20 August, a spokesperson from Senator Minchin's office grudgingly admitted to the ABC that the campaign could cost up to $15 million. During the election campaign proper, the Treasurer, Mr Costello, issued supplementary spending estimates during his infamous mid-campaign press conference, adding more than $2 million to that $15 million. Treasury now estimates that the cost so far is $19.433 million, and this does not include Senator Newman's $800,000 mail-out to 1.7 million pensioners, not only touting for their votes but of course also using the Centrelink mailing system—a potential breach of Commonwealth law that was investigated by the Privacy Commissioner and found to be illegal.On 3 October 1998, the government lost 19 seats to the opposition. Labor did not lose a seat, and achieved the support of a majority of voters. The Senate vote was an overwhelming 61 per cent to parties which opposed the GST plan. There is no doubt that the entire aim of these bland, friendly ads was to help the government scrape over the line over the seven-week election campaign. At the end of the day, the coalition only just hung onto government with Labor polling a clear majority—51.4 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.As a result of his investigation into the advertising campaign, prompted by the opposition, the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, called for a parliamentary inquiry to clarify guidelines for taxpayer funded advertising campaigns. The government has now responded to opposition calls for action by referring the Auditor-General's recommendations to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The committee is currently undertaking public hearings into the matter.The Auditor-General was less coded than usual in his report when he quoted the principles implemented by the New Zealand Audit Office which leave no room for ambiguity:A government should not disseminate material that . . . is designed to secure, or has the effect of attempting to secure, popular support for the party-political persuasions of the members of the government.There can be no doubt at all that the $20 million GST ad campaign fails this clear test. The entire campaign was consciously designed to elicit popular support for a party political policy in an election campaign. This is not just the view of the Labor Party. The government continued with the blitz campaign in the face of overwhelming condemnation from the nation's media, including a great deal of negative editorial comments.The Auditor-General has recently admitted to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that, to his knowledge, his inquiry into the GST ad campaign attracted an unprecedented level of public correspondence, all of it highly critical. The Australian media and people saw through the government's subterfuge. They knew Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello were misusing public moneys. They were not happy with it then and that has not changed.In addition, the opposition has expressed further concern about the ultimate use of the market research undertaken under this program. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on researching this promotional campaign: which lines work best on the community, which lines work best on voters, how the promotion was tracking, and evaluating the effect once completed. We also know, from evidence in Senate estimates, that these research results were handed to members of the ministerial committee on government communications. The government has never denied that these politicians followed their political interests and handed them straight to the Liberal Party and their advertising company for immediate use in the imminent election campaign. This would be a further outright abuse of public money and Commonwealth copyright.Public money was used in an unconscionable way immediately prior to the election campaign, and Mr Howard really has no choice but to instruct the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Crosby, to write a cheque for $20 million addressed to the Collector of Public Moneys, Department of Finance and Administration, Canberra, and repay the taxpayer. If not, the opposition will continue to expose the extent and the cynicism of this rort, using all avenues that are available to us.The report of the Auditor-General also considered the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration to fund the CEIP. The advance has been around in one form or another basically since Federation. It is provided annually by the parliament in such a way to ensure that the requirements of section 83 of the Constitution are complied with, namely: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.It is basically a contingency device to enable the executive to meet urgent and unforeseen expenditure. The appropriation acts set out the purpose of the advance. The amounts spent from the advance are advised to the parliament by the Minister for Finance and Administration on a monthly basis and are given an explicit appropriation by the parliament at the first opportunity. It is that appropriation in relation to the CEIP that I am moving that the Senate declare to be an improper use of public money.The Labor Party supports the existence and use of the advance. It has in the past provided a mechanism to make funds available for drought and other disaster relief, unforeseen legal costs and variations in the cost of our international obligations that are the result of movements in the exchange rate. Those are just a couple of examples. However, we do not support the use of the advance as a device to obscure government expenditure from the scrutiny of the parliament, and that is what has happened on this occasion.The crux of this issue really is why the expenditure on the CEIP was not included in the appropriation bills presented by the Treasurer to the parliament in May last year. An appropriation of $10 million was provided in the 1997-98 appropriation acts for the CEIP, but was not spent. Treasury claim that at the latest time the budget papers could have been changed it was not known that this money would need to be rolled over into 1998-99.The Auditor-General's report indicates that at this time, in early May, planning was under way to launch the campaign in mid-June. On the basis of this start date, it is clear that payments would not have been made in the 1997-98 fiscal year and should have been provided for in the appropriation bills presented to parliament in May last year. I commend to the Senate the comments of the Auditor-General on this matter.Of course, the Treasury does not have any response to these sorts of issues. Their only response is to say that they had no discussions with OGIA about the billing cycle. Putting aside the question of why Treasury did not ask about the billing arrangements of a $10 million plus campaign, it surely would have been apparent to the nation's principal economic advisers that, if you start running a campaign in mid-June, you will not hand the cash over until at least July. Any reasonable person would have formed the view prior to the cut-off date for the budget bills that this expenditure would have been incurred by the Commonwealth in 1998-99. In other words, the advance was not used in accordance with the requirements set out by the parliament in the appropriation act.There are a number of substantive grounds for concern about the Howard government's actions on the GST ad campaign. This government has abused public trust by using Commonwealth revenue to further the political interests of the coalition parties and use the contingency mechanism, the AMFA, to prevent parliamentary scrutiny until it is too late. For these abuses of public trust, the Howard government deserves the Senate's and the Australian people's condemnation. I urge the Senate to support the amendment which I have moved.10:16:003558Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In response to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 , I will be speaking on a number of issues to do with government policies or economic policies in general and in relation to budgets and budget reporting. First of all, honourable senators and the community may have noticed what AAP has reported today:Treasurer Peter Costello today renewed his warning of a tight budget in May in a government bid to keep the budget in surplus.His warning follows Australia's worst-ever trade deficit figure issued yesterday—the deficit blew out to $1.5 billion in February."What I have said is we need to run a budget in surplus. This is a very big thing; we don't want to get blase about surpluses," Mr Costello told ABC Radio."Surpluses are hard to produce and they take disciplined economic work."Asked if more cuts in the budget could be expected, he said: "I think we have got to run a tight ship and we have got to make sure we have got a surplus."And getting a surplus and starting to pay back some of that $90,000 million of debt is very important for our credibility. To run a surplus we have to keep strong policy." What Mr Costello is referring to is what is often considered by economists to be a very blunt instrument. He is talking about the twin deficit theory. Trade deficit figures of $1.5 billion yesterday would indicate to most people that we have a structural problem in relation to our exports and imports, but not to the Treasurer. This is another example that the coalition's attitudes and claims are based on the flawed concept of the twin deficit theory, which is based on a link between budget deficits and surpluses and the current account or trade deficit or surplus. The idea of the twin deficit theory has never been borne out in practice. Indeed, it is clear that the twin deficit theory is a fallacy when you consider that, firstly, across all countries the current account deficit must sum to zero and, secondly, in contrast, government deficits across all countries can take on a large range of values.The twin deficit fallacy is overwhelmingly illustrated by the latest current account figures. Despite moves towards a budget surplus over the last two years, our current account deficit has continued to increase. So where is the connection? And yesterday we saw our trade deficit increase again. Could that be because the current account deficit and trade deficit are not related to the budget surplus or deficit, except by very tenuous means?The government has had its head in the clouds. The current account deficit is a crucial economic indicator of wellbeing. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is crucial. It reflects the state of the national economy and deserves serious attention. To think that it will be A-okay, irrespective of the current account deficit, as long as the domestic export fundamentals are kept under control is naivety in the extreme. People in the community can sense this. They know what is happening with local industries. They know how much they can buy that is made elsewhere. They also know what they cannot buy that is made in Australia.So it is not surprising, if we do have stronger periods of growth or some buoyancy within consumers in Australia, that they are not going to be able to spend it generally on goods made in Australia. They can see food commodities in the marketplace and it is obvious to everyone, except the government and perhaps the opposition, that the issues are structural. We have to start talking about those structural issues. Roughly 10 per cent of the Australian economy is export based. We have become so blinkered to the way we structure the rest of the economy that we have forgotten that we have some structural issues to deal with. The goods and services which people require in their normal life—basic food, clothing and shelter—one would think, in a country like Australia, could largely be produced from the vast resources within regions of Australia. This is a very green principle—that we should not be wasting precious energy by wastefully bringing goods that could be produced locally right across the world, but that is what we are doing. There is some bland idea that there is a level playing field and that somehow this cheap energy will continue forever. Clearly, that is not going to happen. Also, clearly, we are building ourselves into a structural dependence on other countries and it is not doing our trade deficit any good. We know what is happening with exporters—it is a very competitive world—and we know what is happening with the rest of the world. In reality we seem to be running faster and faster. In the past I would have said, `Running faster and faster and staying on the same spot' but, clearly from the trade deficit figures of yesterday, here we are running faster and faster but in fact going backwards. Both Australia's imports and exports rose. As I say, there we were running faster on exports but with no idea of whether or not we were able to meet the needs of the Australian market from resources within the regions of Australia. I know there are people who will come up with the bland comment, `Well, Australia's market isn't important enough for us to concentrate on.' That is nonsense. If 90 per cent of our economy is based on the Australian market, it is a nonsense to suggest that we should leave it to other regions and other countries and waste all that energy obtaining those goods from other countries each time. We know that we are trading more and that is about it. But is that good in itself? I am not sure that it is if it is not actually bringing the benefits to the Australian economy. There is an assumption that trading will mean positive outcomes for everyone. I think that was the assumption pushing the Uruguay Round of GATT. It is certainly the assumption that keeps the World Trade Organisation going. But, in reality, if everyone in the world is trading more and more and we are not necessarily getting commensurate benefits within the countries, except draining resources out and perhaps producing goods and services that not everybody needs, maybe we have to reassess those strategies. I would like to move on to an issue which is important to me and which I have brought up on a number of previous occasions, and that is how we present the state of our own economy. An issue of concern to me is what we have done on the state of the environment accounting and on integrating the accounts on environmental issues into our budget accounting.In 1993 a draft revised UN report entitled United Nations system of national accounts provided for the descriptions of natural resource accounting, environmental satellite accounts and balance sheets. Environmental satellite accounts are accounts compatible with the main national accounts so as to allow adjustment of gross domestic product for the use of natural resources and changes in the environment as a result of economic activity. A supplement to the United Nations report called the System of integrated economic and environmental accounting, or SIEEA, was also released and has been used as the basis of preparing satellite environmental accounts.In May 1995 the then Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Paul Elliott, announced the allocation of $3.5 million to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or ABS, for the development of environmental and resource statistics linked to the national accounts. This system was to be in accordance with United Nations guidelines. The ABS would progressively produce a number of component environmental accounts as well as a discussion paper entitled the System of environmental accounts for Austral ia. It was expected that the report would be produced in 1999. We are in 1999, and I guess I wait for it with bated breath.In June 1996 the ABS released a report entitled Australians and the environment, which gives the first valuation of natural assets for the national accounts. It was an experimental analysis of the 1991-92 national accounts. The 1996 coalition policy document entitled Saving our natural heritage indicated that the development of green accounts would have priority in the ABS forward work program. In an answer to a question on notice, the present Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, stated:Work on environmental accounts being undertaken by the ABS is extremely complex and will involve wide consultation with stakeholders to ensure the appropriate use of the most suitable data and the compilation of those components which are of the greatest use. Based on overseas experience the project will take many—he did not say `several'; he said `many'—years. A progress review of achievements is scheduled for the latter part of the 1998/99 financial year. For these reasons "green accounting" practices will not be employed in the 1996/97 budget.I just wonder whether those wide consultations are continuing; I would like to think they are. I know the ABS is still working on a wide range of information. We have a great wealth of information being collected. I am really interested to see whether the government is still committed to that wide consultation process or whether `many years' means we will sit on our hands and hope we will forget that it exists.It should be noted that Canada integrated its economic and environmental data into a new environmental information system that estimates the environment's contribution to Canada's national wealth. The publication is called Econnections: linking the environment and the economy—indicators and detailed statistics, 1997. The resource estimates of the econnections indicators will be included in the official estimate of the national wealth in the national balance sheet accounts beginning in the 1997 year, set for release in 1998. I guess this is an old note.The ABS has released three documents related to the satellite accounts which have been prepared and released so far. They are Energy account 4604 (1993-94) that was released in November 1996; Minerals account 4608(1996), released in March 1998; and Fish account 4607 (1997), released in March 1999. The water account is due out later this year. The energy account needs to be redone and is being revised at present because it is not able to be plugged into various models. That revision is likely to be out later this year as well.Two other reports—forest account and wastes account—are also under preparation, and data is available at present, we believe. However, there is a review of priorities being undertaken by the ABS at present to see if the projects should run concurrently as at present or if most of the effort should go to getting out the water and energy accounts of this year. Reports on land use and biodiversity are much less advanced since there is a need for adequate data. Their production will probably wait until the results of the land and water audit are finalised. Once these reports are prepared, other reports such as the carbon account—using data from energy, forests and land use—will be able to be constructed. The proposed report System of environmental accounts for Australia will not be prepared in 1999. When or if it will be prepared is unclear. I guess that is something the government will have to clarify.An international meeting on satellite accounting is to be held in Canberra in November this year. This will be a meeting of the leaders in the field—I think they are called the London group. The United Nations Handbook on Satellite Accounts is being considered for revision at this meeting. I think the government are going to have to do a lot of work if they have not put their minds, since this project was instigated by Senator Faulkner, to how they are going to integrate and include these kinds of accounts in their mainstream accounts. I would like to think that the Australian government would consider being able to report to this international meeting in Canberra this November to be an important priority. I am not holding my breath, but the community should continue to put pressure on the government to make sure that we are one of the countries leading the way on this issue. It is not happening at the moment, but we have the basis for that and it should not be wasted.Along with the consideration of environmental accounting there should be a consideration of general progress indicators. We have had a lot of discussion in relation to the proposed tax package—the ANTS package—about what the impact will be on equity in Australia. We are beginning to hear evidence in the review of the national competition policy and there is a great deal of concern that the so-called `free market' has the impact of increasing the gaps between rich and poor and between regional and urban Australia.If we were to have, in our accounting of these processes, equity indexes or progress indicators, we might have an idea of whether we are going forward or whether we are moving towards the structure of a less developed economy, that is, with growing gaps between the rich and poor—a marginalised working poor and a growing number of people angry at being cut out of the decision making process. These are important progress indicators; they should not be separated out as if the only things that are important are profit and loss statements, least cost quotes or the lowest cost tendering or as if government should be operating simply as a business—there to make profit and loss, to slash and burn and to charge for services that otherwise would not be provided.So there are two elements. We have to look at environmental accounting to see whether we are really making steps forward or whether we are eating into our natural capital in order to provide a short-term profit for some people. We also have to look at whether the way in which we are going forward is bringing the rest of the community with us or whether we are continuing to marginalise a growing number of people within the Australian community.The last issue I would like to deal with today in relation to these appropriation bills is what Australia could and should be doing to take positive steps in relation to curbing speculative investment. On 23 March it was recorded that the Canadian government voted overwhelmingly in favour of the so-called Tobin tax, which is a tax on financial transactions. I have a couple of press releases that have been sent to me from people who contact us from Canada and who made the historic vote possible. One of the press releases says:Vote for the Tobin tax paves way for Canadian leadership to regulate the global money casino.Ottawa—NGOs applaud the Canadian government for voting yes to promoting measures to control currency speculation. Private member's motion 239 calls for Canada to promote a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community. Canadian NGOs have been pushing for this tax, commonly known as the Tobin tax, after Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin, as an important measure to make the global economy more stable, democratic and equitable. The motion passed in the House of Commons, 162 to 83. We would like to salute Lorne Nystrom for his initiative in putting forward this motion.There has been some discussion in Australia in relation to the Tobin tax. I know there has been discussion within the Labor Party in relation to the Tobin tax. We know that, as far as banking is concerned in Australia, one of the reasons the banks do not particularly care whether they annoy their customers or put on extra charges is that by far their greatest amount of business is international speculative money transactions.The reality is that we have very powerful dealers in the international speculative money market who buy and sell currencies simply to make money. It has nothing to do with reality; a lot of it is to do with hedging bets or, in a way, pushing governments to make their policies in a certain direction. We know what happens when governments decide to spend more money, we know what happens when there are changes to social policy in countries like Australia: there are changes in our dollar. International money speculators are, in effect, dictating policy. It could be environmental, social or economic policy, but here we have totally unelected people whose only motivation is to make speculative short-term profits telling Australia, Canada and every country in the world whose money is being traded in the international competitive economy what to do. Australia's currency is one of the most speculative currencies.I would like to think that it is possible, and I would like to make it an aim, that before I leave at the end of June this Senate will be prepared to support a similar motion to move towards a Tobin tax and towards promoting this in the international arena.10:36:003562Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—In addressing Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 and the associated bills, I want to focus my remarks on the goods and services tax and some of the implications of that tax for the country and for our budget. The coalition has made many statements over the past few months about the benefits of a goods and services tax in Australia. The current government has made many claims about the unfairness of the current tax system, particularly in relation to tax avoidance and compliance costs.The facts of life are that, in the vast majority of submissions that have been received by the Senate select committee on the goods and services tax, people have drawn attention to the unfairness of a goods and services tax, particularly as it applies to those on low incomes. We have seen as late as yesterday a press release headed `Unprecedented church, community alliance calls for tax changes.' It says, in part:An historically broad alliance of church, charitable, community and consumer organisations today released a joint statement rejecting the Government's Tax Package and calling for major changes to improve its fairness and protect those on low incomes.Speaking at the release of the joint statement, ACOSS President, Michael Raper, said:Never before has such a large number of Australia's major church, charity, welfare, community and consumer representatives come together to declare the Government's GST unacceptable in its current form.We all believe that substantial and continuing tax reform is essential. In fact, I would have thought that tax reform was a continuum. If you look back at the Hansard reports of this parliament over the past 100 years, you will see it littered with debates about changes to the tax system. The nature of the tax system has always been under review by the parliament and has been subject to change over the history of our federation. But the Labor Party does not believe that tax reform equals a GST. The difference between Labor and the Liberal-National coalition is that Labor believes tax reform must be fair and must benefit all Australians. It must not be reform that disadvantages those who can least afford it or that costs jobs by disadvantaging business.The cornerstone of the coalition tax reform package is a GST, and one of the substantial reasons for the tax reform package, according to the Prime Minister, John Howard, is to fight tax evasion to stop those people who are not paying their fair share. I am questioning the degree of the black economy. At Senate estimates we have had estimates made of what it is, ranging from $3 billion up to $18 billion. The reality is that Treasury does not know, nor does this government, the extent or the size of the black economy in Australia.The coalition have repeatedly claimed that a GST will fight tax evasion and that it is a simpler and less cumbersome tax alternative than the current arrangements. The GST will not deliver the sort of tax reform that Australia is asking for or the tax reforms that the coalition is promising. All of the facts about a GST in relation to tax evasion and compliance costs show us that a GST is detrimental. In fact, in many of the countries that have recently introduced a GST, tax evasion has become significantly worse. I can give a number of examples, starting with the example of Canada.In Canada, the arguments for the introduction of GST were very similar to those now being espoused by the Prime Minister, Treasurer and other coalition members. For example, the Canadian Finance Department argued that a GST would significantly reduce tax evasion and, at the time, all the rational economic models supported this proposition by showing that a GST would not lead to an increase in tax evasion. The GST was later introduced at a low rate of seven per cent to replace a hidden sales tax. Does this sound familiar? What have been the results of this tax evasion in Canada, and can we learn from their mistakes?A renowned conservative think tank in Canada, the Fraser Institute, has recently completed a study titled The underground economy: global evidence of its size and impact. In its report, the Fraser Institute shows that the GST is the primary catalyst for growth in the underground economy in Canada. The report makes several clear points to support this fact by comprehensively analysing the state of the economy in Canada after the introduction of its GST in 1991. Firstly, there was a growth in tax evasion of around two per cent of GDP from early 1991 to the end of 1993. This equated to around $14 billion of unreported GDP, which meant lost taxation revenue of some $6 billion to all levels of government in Canada. As in Australia today, many predictions were made by the government in Canada about the revenue that would be received from a GST and that it would enable the replacement of existing hidden taxes as well as income tax cuts.The facts in Canada show that in 1993-94 there was a shortfall of revenue from the GST in the budget of $1 billion relative to the predicted income of the 1991-92 budget. The Fraser Institute report shows that most of this shortfall can be attributed to evasion of the GST. In Canada, the problems associated with this loss of revenue through a GST have had a significant impact on the capabilities of government. Decreased tax revenue obviously means that the government is forced to either spend less or borrow more. If borrowing is increased, a larger proportion of taxes people pay today goes to servicing debt incurred in the past to pay for services consumed in the past. Tax rate increases are inevitable as the only solution to this problem.In Australia, I think it is fair to say, we can expect a similar result to Canada, where the GST is not all it is supposed to be and inevitably the rate of GST continually rises to combat falling government revenue. If tax is increased by government without adequate benefits to offset it, the public perception is that the tax is unfair and will further encourage tax evasion. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, they have found similar results to those of Canada.In a publication called VAT Experiences of Some European Countries, R. Hemming and J.A. Kay from the Institute for Fiscal Studies point out:It would not be at all surprising to find that a tax as complex as VAT was fairly easy to evade. However, it has been suggested that the invoice method of operating the tax provides a built-in policing mechanism. This built-in policing is illusory even on transactions between registered traders . . . A comprehensive system to check compliance would require tracing all the VAT invoices issued by traders . . . and matching the totals of these to that traders declared output, a task which is clearly impossible.In the Netherlands, as far back as 1976, Sijbren Cnossen, from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, completed a review of a comprehensive government report on tax evasion. The Cnossen review points out:A recent government report on tax throws light on the extent of tax evasion. For the report some 77,000 field audits that were made in 1976 (20% of the number of taxpayers at that time) were reviewed. The audits resulted in the imposition of 45,000 additional assessments (6 out of 10 audits) and the recovery of $0.31 Billion revenue, or almost 2% of total receipts for that year. Furthermore it was discovered that one fourth of all cases consisted of petty fraud involving $1000 tax or less.This demonstrates clearly a shifting of the tax burden from government to private enterprise. The compliance costs under a GST will significantly increase as the burden of tax collection is shifted from government to private enterprise, and particularly to small and medium enterprises. The Centre for Independent Studies in 1996-97, in its publication Policy , explains tax compliance succinctly under an article entitled `The Hidden Costs of a GST—An International Experience'. The centre states:There are in broad terms, three main types of costs associated with tax compliance. Firstly, the costs of running the Australian Taxation Office and other revenue authorities termed administrative costs. Second, there are the costs of taxpayers in complying with tax rules, and third the wider economic costs associated with the ways taxes can distort business and consumer behaviour. The increased compliance costs faced by an average business according to the Centre are as follows:. . . . . . . . .No doubt the highest compliance costs will be suffered by those who previously did not participate in the sales tax system but who would be required to participate in the GST system because of its breadth."Many people, in small businesses in particular, are wondering what exactly the compliance costs of a GST are, and what they will have to do to comply. The government has not been publicising the things that the average business would have to do to comply with a GST. I believe that this is because no small business would support a GST if it fully understood the work that will be involved in collecting this tax for the government. Some of the typical compliance costs that the Centre for Independent Studies has exposed are:There will be an added compliance cost in the form of completion of a periodic return and either a payment to the revenue or a claim for a refund. If there is a refund it will have to be checked and banked. At the point of recovery of GST on supplies made by the business there will be an extra invoicing function to reflect the GST, if Australia adopts an `add on' rather than `add in' system. There would be an extra initial cost of ensuring the business's stationery complies with requirements such as showing a registration number and proper current address. There would naturally be an initial compliance cost in registering the business in the first place. At the point of acquisition of supplies by business, on which it wishes to claim a credit for the GST paid, there will be an extra function of recording the GST that has been paid so that it can be offset against a GST recovered by the business . . . The compliance costs would increase where the nature of the business involved some refinement or other (depending on the model adopted) to the standard GST template, such as imputing a deemed GST on the cost of second hand goods as trading stock by second hand dealers, accounting for GST incurred as an agent for another business, dealings within group companies and so on. All these refinements would involve small but repetitive extra compliance activities not necessarily encompassed by existing accounting methods.According to Sandford and Hasseldine, in the publication Compliance Costs of Business Taxes in New Zealand , the costs of all of this work have been estimated at $NZ453 million, or 7.3 per cent of GST net revenue in that country. More importantly, Sandford also notes in his research:If administrative costs are allowed for, there must be a high probability that the combined administrative and compliance costs would exceed revenue.If Australia is to use its closest neighbour as a working example of a GST in practice, then every business in Australia will be faced with the enormously complicated, repetitive and expensive task of collecting a GST for the coalition government. Is it any wonder there is so much tax avoidance in those countries with a GST? Perhaps the high level of avoidance in those countries is because people cannot understand the complexity of the GST, let alone afford to comply with it.The approach that has been taken by the government in this tax debate has been one of secrecy and unfounded propositions. Many of the assertions that have been made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cannot be supported by fact. One clear example of that is the continued reference to the compensation package and the continued claim that the compensation package contained in the tax proposition will more than adequately compensate low income Australians for the impact of a GST. We have seen that myth exploded in the past couple of weeks by Mr Geoff Carmody, one of the architects of Fightback back in 1993 and certainly not an avid supporter of this side of the parliament. Mr Carmody clearly warns that the compensation package that has been put in place by this coalition government would be eroded within a matter of two to three years and that pensioners and low income earners will be substantially worse off at the end of that period if a GST is introduced.This tax reform package that is being heralded by the current government as a saviour for all of our ills in this country is in fact nothing more than a representation of the ideological bent of the people who are promoting it. It will do nothing to create jobs in this country. It will do nothing to resolve the problems of unemployment in regional and rural Australia. That has been clearly demonstrated by the modelling done by the Prime Minister's preferred modeller, Chris Murphy, and by Professor Dixon of Monash. There is no substantial employment gain as a result of this tax reform, and none can be demonstrated. But it is ideologically driven and it has been clearly demonstrated that it will substantially benefit the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country, to the detriment of the vast majority of taxpayers.It will not substantially improve the position of our industries. It will not make them substantially more competitive than they are now because, as Professor Dixon pointed out, it will in fact create a bias in the structure of our economy towards the mining sector—something that we have been trying to redress since the mid-1980s. Through a variety of reforms and policy decisions, the previous Labor government tried to shift the balance in our economy away from a reliance on the mining and rural sectors to a much more diversified, mixed economy with manufacturing as a key focus—particularly elaborately transformed manufacturers—as part of our drive to increase our exports. That work of 10 years, the sacrifice that many workers in this country made over that period in terms of wages forgone in order to allow the investment to take place in that area, will be reversed as a result of the introduction of the GST. Those sacrifices, in the end, will be for nothing because the end gain will not be there.This package demonstrates the absolute arrogance of this Prime Minister and this government and their absolute belief that they can govern for a very small segment of the Australian community. They have not demonstrated in the period they have been in office—from March 1996—that they are a government for all of us. They have had a very distinct bias in the policies they have presented, even to the extent where their industrial relations minister, Peter Reith, has openly claimed that they are there to represent the interests of business. At the end of the day, that is what they are about. (Time expired)10:56:003565Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to commence with some remarks with regard to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 . I wish to make remarks about the financial independence of parliament—views the Australian Democrats have which are not shared by the executive-minded major parties. Parliament is funded by the government of the day—in other words, it is the executive which decides how it is funded. This is despite parliament's theoretical and constitutional position as the supreme arm of our system of representative government. It is not the executive which should be supreme in our society; it is the parliament, which represents the people and in which is reflected the sovereignty of the people. The excessive concern in our society and in all elections with the executive reflects a distortion in our democratic values.The Western Australian royal commission of 1992 warned that the financial tie between the executives and parliaments blunts the capacity of parliament to properly perform its watchdog role over the government. Those of you who are students of history will recall that the origin of parliamentary privilege was to protect parliament from the executive which, at that stage, was outside of parliament—the executive was the Crown. But those cunning Brits introduced the Westminster system, sneaked the executive into the parliament, and ever since we have suffered from the oppression of the attitudes of the executive to parliamentary independence.Parliament must be properly equipped to fulfil its accountability responsibilities in a manner consistent with its constitutional independence. Parliamentary financial independence is important to campaign for because a genuine separation of powers demands that one arm of government not be financially subordinate to another, and that is especially important in the case of parliament. Where parliaments are financially hamstrung in any way, it will affect their ability to adequately scrutinise the actions of the executive, and where the executive has acted inappropriately, it can use its financial control to hamper parliament from exposing that activity through limiting funds available for the proper pursuit of its duties.Sometimes I am dismayed by the way in which the media run the executive agenda of bashing the parliament and, in particular, the Senate, which is elected, broadly speaking, on a proportional representation basis. It is the parliament which protects the people, not the executive, and we should be mindful of the need to keep parliament independent and supreme. The Australian Democrats believe that a strong, well resourced, properly funded and fully effective parliament is possible only with financial independence from the executive. While the parliament does have its own separate appropriation bill such as that before us, the executive maintains a tight rein over the amounts included within it.The Australian Democrats believe that, in contrast to the existing system, where the presiding officers—who, incidentally, ultimately are appointed by the government of the day through their parliamentary party control—have a great deal to say on the budget, there should be a joint standing committee of both houses of the federal parliament that is responsible for planning the budget of the parliament. That is not an extreme proposition. After all, the joint house committee that oversees the Auditor-General fulfils exactly that role. We do not believe that the government should be able to hold a majority on that committee, because that would constrain the independence of parliament.We believe that the government should be obliged to accept the recommendations of the committee with respect to funding unless there are pressing reasons in the national interest for them to be rejected. In that case, the government must publish full reasons as to why the recommendations should not be accepted. That would place political constraints on the government without removing from them their ultimate powers over spending. In other words, they should have the right to veto because they are responsible for funding, but they should not have the right to set the budget. Where the recommendations are accepted, the government should obviously not be politically answerable for the amounts appropriated; parliament needs to be responsible to itself. But that does not mean to say that we should let parliament run riot without being properly accountable. Parliament does need to be fully audited and fully subject to the Auditor-General's normal accountability measures. When we consider this Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , all of us must remember that ultimately we, as the representatives of the people, are in fact subject to the executive and that it is the executive who reign supreme in our system and not the parliament, as is the intention of democracy and of our Constitution.I want to move on from those remarks to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and focus on the primary issue which has been raised by the opposition. Before I do so, I want to refer to some remarks made by Senator Cook last night which are recorded in Hansard. I wish to correct the record, because Senator Cook has made some remarks which are not quite accurate. He is obviously not intentionally misleading the parliament or anything of that sort, but he does say the following:The decision to hold an inquiry into the government's GST legislation was a decision arrived at in this chamber, but it had its genesis in an agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats with some input, I understand, from Senator Harradine. Only after the die was cast between those players were the Labor Party brought into the story.That is utterly and completely untrue. At the time the committee structure was being discussed, the government were adamant that they would not even countenance such an inquiry because they had a mandate, they had debated it in the House of Representatives and the rest of us could go hang. So the Democrats went, first, to the Labor Party and campaigned for the form of the committees that we desired. We and the Labor Party had some deep and intense discussions on that form. It was only when the government realised that on this issue they had to either face an alliance of the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens and Senator Harradine or create an alliance themselves with the Democrats and Senator Harradine that they agreed to the committee structure which in fact went through. Let me make it clear that the Labor Party were intimately involved in discussions on this matter right from the very beginning. I move on now to the focus of many of the remarks by the opposition on these appropriation bills. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has moved a second reading amendment which says:. . . but the Senate is of the view that the $19.433 million spent on the community education and information program on the tax system is an improper use of public money.I say at the outset that the Democrats will support that motion. We agree with the opposition.The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate also drew attention to the Auditor-General's report No. 12 1998-99 entitled Taxation reform: community education and information program. That audit report was as a result of some good and thorough work done particularly by Senators Faulkner and Ray in the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee and in other fora on this matter, which resulted in a reference to the ANAO. The ANAO and the Auditor-General always express themselves extremely carefully. Their brief was to look at the issue of the propriety of using public funds to promote a policy initiative of a government just prior to an election. They looked at whether the funds approval met the legislative conditions. But at the heart of this discussion is not what you can or cannot do by the letter of the law but what you should be doing in terms of the spirit of the law, in terms of the morality which attaches to the use of public funds by the government of the day for political advertising.The Bills Digest draws the attention of the Senate to a quote from Mr Howard in 1995. It also draws attention to the fact that the coalition, in opposition, had criticised this activity on several occasions, for example in response to the Hawke government's tax advertising in 1986. It says:In 1995, Mr Howard stated that: Today's Shadow Cabinet meeting in Gladstone decided that, in Government, we will ask the Auditor General to draw up new guidelines on what is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money in this area.Then the Digest says:However, no such request appears to have been made by the Howard Government to date. The Digest is dated January 1999, so the Howard government has had a long time to fix a problem which it identified previously. What is really emerging here is the consistent problem that the people of Australia have with the parliament: the principles and the views and attitudes on morality that are held by a political party in opposition are not practised in government. That is why they do not trust us, they do not believe in us and lots of them do not like us very much.Appendix 1 of the Attorney-General's report outlines suggested principles and guidelines for the use of government advertising, derived from guidelines adopted in New Zealand and the United Kingdom and suggested as a result of reviews of government advertising in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and British Columbia. For those who are not familiar with the excellent series of `Commission on government' papers that arose in Western Australia, I would urge you to have a look at their discussion of this issue of government advertising.It is a problem which remains unsolved, and frankly I am going to put the blame right at Labor's door. You had the opportunity to fix the law in this regard. On 30 June 1998, in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 debate, I moved an amendment on behalf of the Australian Democrats to fix government advertising. It essentially dealt with the period of six months preceding the day on which the House of Representatives is due to expire and authorised:. . . publication of any advertisement about Commonwealth government programs or policies, including matters which affect the rights, benefits and obligations of people;except in accordance with this section.The amendment said:. . . The publication of an advertisement is permitted under this section if the advertisement is paid for, or is to be paid for, with public money and any of the following apply:(a) the advertisement is otherwise required or permitted by this Act to be published;(b) the advertisement is necessary to inform the public of changes to statutes or delegated legislation; (c) the advertisement is necessary for the carrying on of commercial services provided by government agencies;(d) the advertisement is for the purposes of recruitment of staff or officeholders;(e) the advertisement calls for tenders;(f) the advertisement relates to a public inquiry;(g) the advertisement contains a notice that is required by statute to be published;(h) the advertisement relates to a community service and the non-publication of the advertisement would be to the public detriment—and various definitions followed. The fact is that amendment would have proscribed the kind of advertising which the government followed in its pre-election practices—the blatantly political use of public funds for its tax advertising.In the debate I indicated that the amendment arose out of recent events and that its fate was entirely in the hands of the major parties. We knew at that time that at least $10 million worth of taxpayers' funds were going to be used to push out a particular view that the government had come to. Senators Faulkner and Ray criticised the amendment. Some of their criticisms were valid, and I did not object on behalf of the Australian Democrats to them having rejected the amendment when they had valid reasons.Their first reason was that this amendment might not have caught the forthcoming election, but mostly Senator Faulkner expounded technical reasons. In fact I quote him:It is for those technical reasons, I have to say, Senator Murray, that the opposition will not support the amendment you have moved.When you talk about technical reasons, you are saying, `We support the spirit and intention but you have made some errors in the drafting.' If that were so, if Labor were serious about fixing this problem, they would have come back and fixed the technical problems. If they felt they did not have enough time, they would have come to the last time in which the Electoral Act could be amended, which was as recently as February-March 1999. Is that so, Senator Brown? When did you deal with it?Senator Brown interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—It was a few weeks ago, wasn't it?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—And they would have fixed the problem with their own way of getting around those technical issues. I know that when the Labor Party are serious about matters they bring amendments to the floor—and they haven't. That is the reason we are going to continue to have this government advertising problem. Until such time as the Labor Party accept that they have to amend the law, they will not stop it. Why won't they stop it? Because when they are in government they want to do the same thing. That is the very thing that John Howard and the coalition were going on about in their entire time in opposition when Labor were in power.I would agree that, on the record, the Labor Party never extended their use of public funds improperly to the extent that this government has. I think the way in which government funds were used prior to the election was quite shocking. That practice has been universally condemned around the world by every independent inquiry into this matter. Senator Faulkner, in his remarks on that electoral bill in 1998, said:Through the Senate estimates committee process, we have been able to expose at least $40 million worth of advertising that can only be described as politically partisan election advertising that is motivated only because of the proximity of a federal election campaign.Let me acknowledge that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray have done a very good job in exposing that sort of thing. But let us stop exposing it, because it does not stop the expenditure and it does not stop the immorality; let us fix it with amendments that will get rid of the problem. I urge the Labor Party to accompany their rhetoric on this matter with legislative action.11:16:003569Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We are dealing with the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 . These are bills that allow the government to take taxpayers' money, basically, for the service of the nation. I want to home in on the entirely confused and directionless way in which the government is failing, as we go into the new century, to take Australia into the lead as the sun power nation. Australia has a terrific opportunity to become the solar power nation leading the world with the export of the technologies it already has and putting research and development funds into clean green energy.There is a burgeoning market to our north, particularly in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where the traditional Western modes of big power stations are fraught with difficulties. If you are going to have the production of energy equally across those nations—simply because they are made up of so many islands—how much better it would be if we were able to export to them technologies which will allow the local production of energy. This would allow access for villages, local people and farmers to electricity and modes of heating water and so on. This is an enormous market which is going to grow in the next century.At the end of 1997 we had the Prime Minister's statement `Safeguarding the future: Australia's response to climate change'. I do not think it was an initiative in the full sense of that word; it was a response to international criticism about Australia's delinquent position in not joining the rest of the world in trying to curb the production of greenhouse gases. The Prime Minister said:Targets will be set for the inclusion of renewable energy in electricity generation by the year 2010. Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2% of their electricity from renewable or specified waste products energy sources by 2010 (including through direct investment in alternative renewable energy sources such as solar water heaters). This will accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based power applications, and provide an ongoing base for commercially competitive renewable energy. The programme will also contribute to development of internationally competitive industries which would participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market.What the Prime Minister is saying there is basically what I have just said, and that is that Australia should be in a position to capture the burgeoning Asian market in clean green energy. But the government's actions are totally at odds with that. What the Prime Minister was announcing at that stage was that an extra two per cent of the electricity market in the future would be coming from clean green energy.I put to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, through a series of questions, that clean green energy should be solar power, as Australians understand it—in particular photovoltaic; that is, solar panels which produce electricity for lighting. If you are in the outback of Australia solar power can be used for almost all household purposes—cooking, refrigeration, television, lighting and so on.There is also the issue of wind power. Australia's southern coastline—I know this, being a Tasmanian—lies in the path of the roaring forties. We have some of the best wind configurations, the best potential wind power situations, anywhere in the world. If this two per cent of new energy sources was to be allocated to those specific industries, it would be an enormous boost to them. They are tiny, but that two per cent allocation would ensure that their growth would allow us to capture those Asian export markets in the future. It would mean a big injection of funds into research and development so that the technology already available in Australian universities for solar power and wind power could be converted for manufacturing and domestic use.I asked Senator Hill whether his definition of renewable energies is in fact solar power and wind power, but back came a confused answer that, if you translate it, means this government is entertaining the idea that that two per cent of so-called renewable energy could include such things as coal gas and existing solar hot water systems, not solar panels. If that is the case, we are again going to see the coal industry capturing this so-called renewable clean green energy market—the reverse of what the government is saying should happen will be happening.I point out to the Senate that there is far more to the government's favouring of the dirty coal industry as a producer of energy—in particular, electricity in this country—and its flouting of the move towards a clean green future where global warming recedes rather than grows as a threat through the GST package. What the government is doing in that package is putting some $3 billion a year into tax rebates for the use of diesel and other fossil fuels. One particular impact of that will be a $52 million gift to diesel fuel producers in outback areas, but in particular in states like Western Australia and Queensland. Some $10 million of that will go to diesel fuel production in the Northern Territory.It sounds all right on the face of it, but that is going to stymie the production of solar and wind based energy. It is a gift of tens of millions of dollars to the old greenhouse gas producing energies just at the time when clean solar and wind power were being able to match the price of electricity production. Just as the solar and wind power energy options are getting on their feet in this country the government comes along and gives a windfall to the old dirty power production and pulls the rug from under the competitiveness of the new energies, the sunrise energies. More than that, the GST is going to tax the production of solar cells and the components for the production of wind power. These were previously untaxed; they are now going to be taxed while the government is giving a rebate, reducing the tax, on the dirty industries. What an extraordinary situation—that this government is actually moving to destroy clean green energy production in this country, or to set it back decades at least.The year before last, when I introduced into the Senate the sun fund bill, which would have allowed people in the bush, in particular, instead of getting the diesel fuel rebate, to have the capital to install clean green renewable energies such as solar power on their homesteads and wherever else it could replace fossil fuel produced energy, the bill foundered due to opposition from both the government and the opposition of the day, even though it was a cost neutral option. But it goes further than that. At a time when the Howard government, backed by the minister who calls himself the minister for the environment, Robert Hill, is giving over $100 million for research and development of the coal and gas industries—the fossil industries—it has abolished the Energy Research and Development Corporation, the only entity in government dedicated to funding clean green energy renewal.This is an extraordinary situation this country has got into. This is not just blinkered thinking; this is a studied destruction of this country's enormous potential to promote business and job creation through the excellent achievements of particularly our universities but also of the private sector. Instead of giving them a boost so that they become manufacturing industries providing Australia with clean green energy and exporting that to the rest of the world, the government on a broad scale is throwing every obstruction in the way of that happening, taking hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and putting it across to the dirty old industries.The impact of that is going to be one of setting Australia back for decades, instead of taking the example of Denmark. In 1980 Denmark determined that it was going to become the leader of wind power production in the world. This is a little nation of five million people where the government got involved and gave capital support to the development of wind power. That country has now raised its target from having 10 per cent of electricity produced through wind power to 30 to 40 per cent of its electricity produced from wind power within the next few decades. It is exporting that wind technology to the rest of the world and has created thousands of jobs. Instead of Australia saying, `Well, we can do that with solar power,' we have a government that is destroying the solar power industry in this country, we have a government that is destroying our opportunity to join Denmark in being a leader in wind power production.What a derelict policy. What a failure by the minister for the environment, who should be fighting to see that our clean green energy options come to the forefront. What a failure of imagination yet again from Prime Minister Howard. What a failure in cabinet to understand this option for this country and to meet with leaders in business—BP Solar and the other corporations which are involved in trying to not only produce the technology but also convert that into manufacturing. What a failure to get behind the hundreds of small producers of clean green alternatives in this country, particularly in the bush, to make sure that they are not only competitive but lead the way as we go into the next century. And what a failure to take the opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs in clean green industries in Australia. Instead, this government is propping up the job shedding coal industry and its interests which no doubt have much more influence over what happens in the Prime Minister's office.Some may say, `Here is another of the Greens on his feet, promoting the impossible. We have to accept circumstances as they are. We have to accept that Australia is going to continue to be seen as a polluting country and a country that will not pull its weight. We have special circumstances, as Senator Hill and Prime Minister Howard say, and we can't change that.' But we have only to look at Britain to see that it can be changed.In the 1980s, Britain was seen as the `dirty neighbour' by the rest of Europe, particularly because of its polluting industries and the fallout from them, which was affecting the rest of Europe through the added impact it had on the killing of forests in Scandinavia and in Germany, through acid rain and particulates from industries, which we know add to the rate of cancer throughout populations. Let us look at what the British government is doing in 1999. Just last month, their Foreign Secretary—and remember that this is not even their Minister for the Environment—Robin Cook spoke to the Green Alliance at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London. He gave a speech called `Britain and the global environment', which began:For the past week I have been commuting to and from Rambouillet, the chateau just outside Paris where the Kosovo peace talks are going on. It is easy in foreign affairs to become preoccupied with the pressing issue of the day—And how all of us must agree with that sentiment, as the horrible in events in Kosovo are unfolding at the moment. Mr Cook went on to say:But while we deal with the conflicts of today, it is crucial that we keep thinking about the kind of world we want to live in tomorrow. This is foreign territory for the government of Australia. He went on to say:If we want that world to have a healthy environment, then we have a major a challenge ahead of us. For anyone who still thinks that global warming can be treated as a side-issue here are four simple statistics. The six warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Last year was the warmest ever. Thousands of square kilometres in Britain are already at risk of flooding. A fifth of the world's population live within 30 km of the coast.The facts are just as stark in other areas. Take biodiversity.This is the Foreign Minister for Britain speaking. I would say, `Take heed, the environment minister for Australia.' He continued:Some people still say that the extinction of plant and animal species is a natural process. So it is. But as the malign result of human activity it is now occurring at up to a thousand times the natural rate. Well over a tenth of the plant species known to man are at risk of extinction. And that isn't just a tragedy for those who enjoy nature. It should concern anyone who cares about our health. A quarter of all prescription drugs are derived from plants. Drugs derived from tropical forest plants are worth USD25 billion a year.He went on, outlining the problems with water and other issues around the world:Each one of these issues is a slow-moving menace with the momentum of a super-tanker bearing down on us. And I haven't even got onto the loss of soil and spreading deserts, the state of the world's fish stocks, the forests, the coral reefs or the ozone layer.He went on to say about the Climate Change Challenge Fund:By working with business, the environmental movement and developing countries—heed this; this is the British government, the Foreign Secretary speaking. Where is Senator Hill? Could he ever utter such a line?—we can break the myth of conflict between the green agenda and the growth agenda. I want British business to lead the way in showing that what is good for the environment can also alleviate poverty—it is not just a rich man's luxury.He then announced a series of measures that Britain is taking:The authorities in Peking, for example, tell us that they would welcome British expertise in encouraging the use of gas rather than coal for heating and cooking—that is step 1—And a consortium led by a British company, The Solar Century, is negotiating in China to build the world's largest factory to make solar panels.So Britain is building, in conjunction with Chinese expertise, the world's biggest factory in the Asian region, while the Australian government is penalising our solar industry. What an extraordinary state of affairs. What a shocking situation. What perverse policy, that the Howard government should be taxing the solar industry as never before, while putting hundreds of millions into the dirty old fossil fuel industries as never before—while the British government is out there with business leaders and environmentalists, leading the world and taking our markets to the north, taking jobs from Australians.Of course, in a global economy, that is their right. Thank goodness somebody has the enlightenment to do what Senator Hill and John Howard cannot do. I intend to hammer this matter, because they are failing Australia. They are failing the clean green future that this nation should have, and they are failing to produce thousands of jobs—and economic prosperity, to boot—while they fail on the environmental questions. Mr Cook ended with a quote from Kennedy:Never before has man had such capacity to control his own environment . . . We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world—or to make it the last.The Howard government seems to be hell-bent on the latter. We Greens are going to fight for the former.11:36:003572Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—In speaking today to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 and related bills, I want to raise an issue concerning the taxation treatment of the charities and not-for-profit organisations in this country—in particular, the proposed treatment they would receive under the government's taxation package. It is an opportune time to raise this issue because yesterday the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiring into the impact of the GST and the taxation package reported to the Senate in what I think is a highly valuable report. I do not want to concentrate today on the narrower subject of the GST, but that report did provide a highly valuable process exposing a range of issues about the taxation treatment of the charitable and not-for-profit sector in this country, and these are issues that I want to raise. It is important that we do have some public debate about these issues in the coming months.Governments have long recognised the role of charitable and community organisations in promoting community welfare and delivering essential services that traditionally no other sector was willing to provide. In order to support the role of charitable and community organisations, governments in this country have, over time, exempted them from a range of taxes. More recently, the coalition government appears to be walking away from that responsibility and that positive encouragement of the not-for-profit sector and seems hell-bent on dragging that sector more and more into the taxation regime and subjecting it to a range of taxation measures.Underlying the government's approach is the new philosophical thinking that is going on inside the conservative parties in this country. The argument is that somehow it is seen as being unfair to provide more favourable tax treatment for the not-for-profit sector than is provided for the for-profit sector. This seems to be the philosophical underpinning to the government's approach. It is well known that the Minister for Aged Care, Mrs Bishop, has stated many times to community groups and providers that she does not like the term `not-for-profit', because she believes that every organisation should be making a profit. Perhaps it is this philosophical approach that underpins the government's thinking in the taxation area.Under the government's tax package, charitable and community organisations will be drawn further into the tax system. Despite many of their activities being GST free, they will have to collect the tax and then seek reimbursement. That is just one of the measures in the proposed tax package that will impact on them. While the non-commercial activities of charitable and community organisations will be GST free, all other activities conducted by charitable and community organisations will have GST applied to them.It is important in this context to remember that these not-for-profit and charitable organisations use commercial activities to subside the non-profitable services that they provide to the disadvantaged. A charitable organisation might well be running a fairly profitable business enterprise, but the money from that enterprise often goes to supporting and helping the homeless and providing food to people living on the street—the social services that those charities and not-for-profit organisations provide in our community that alleviate the poverty and suffering of so many. It is important that we understand the cross-subsidisation nature of the activities of these groups. It is that cross-subsidisation activity that the government is not taking into account in its plans for the taxation treatment of this sector.The other problem that arises is that these organisations that deliver both GST free and GST applied goods and services will be forced to spend a significant amount of their income on administering and complying with the proposed new taxation regime. Millions of dollars will be spent on the paperwork and the accountability mechanisms to ensure that they comply with these new laws. The fact that they are GST free means little, because the mere act of becoming GST free may well cost them a considerable amount of money. All the money that they spend on that activity is money that is not being directed at the poor, the disadvantaged and the needy in our community.The compliance costs that these organisations bear will be directly drawn out of the services provided to those in need. The question the government has to answer is: why? What public purpose is served by that approach? What good is served by forcing these organisations to be involved in the taxation system in this way, only for most of those funds to be reimbursed? The costs of compliance, administration and paperwork being drawn into the taxation system in this way will mean fewer services for those in need in our community.In addition to the costs involved in the GST issue, a major—and in some cases a more important—issue for some organisations is the proposal to introduce a limit on the use of FBT concessions for charitable and community organisations. The government is proposing to limit the level of fringe benefits that are exempt from FBT to $17,000 per employee. The existing FBT exemption was introduced as a way of providing assistance to charitable and community organisations in attracting and retaining qualified staff. Because they could not afford to pay the salaries paid in the private sector, they were allowed the device of using their FBT exempt status to salary package so that their employees could have competitive salaries. Most of the people who work in these sectors have a smaller total salary package, but the FBT exemption allows them to at least arrange a package that provides some opportunity for these charitable and not-for-profit organisations to attract staff.In 1995, there was a report by the Industry Commission into charitable organisations. In considering the removal of tax concessions to charities, it stated:The above disadvantages of input tax exemptions and concessions suggest that they may not be a good way of providing assistance to the sector. Given the major benefits which CSWOs as a whole currently derive from input tax exemptions, however, the Commission considers that any proposal to remove these benefits should include alternative ways of providing the same aggregate level of government assistance to the sector.So the Industry Commission in 1995 recommended that we phase out the FBT concessions to charitable organisations but that we recognise that their level of service would be severely reduced as a result of those changes and that we would need to make other arrangements to ensure that the government assistance to the sector was maintained.Unfortunately, what has happened in the sector since that time is that the use of the FBT concession has grown quite considerably. It is often only anecdotal evidence, but I think it is true to say that the use of the FBT concession is now a much larger component in the sector than it ever was before. It is certainly true in the public benevolent institution areas, such as state government public hospitals, particularly in my home state of Western Australia and in Victoria, but I think it is true also of the wider charitable and not-for-profit sector.The Labor Party supports the proposed limit on FBT concessions. It accepts there is a need for greater regulation in this area and for transparency and accountability in the use of the exemption. There is no question of that. The Labor Party remains firm in that position. The current regime where organisations rely on informal unwritten advice from the Taxation Office about how to apply the concession is clearly not good public policy and not acceptable. We need a proper regime which provides transparency and accountability. In supporting the government's proposed limit, we recognise—particularly since the GST inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee—the very real needs of the sector which arise from these moves. There are issues that need to be addressed in terms of the impact on the sector.The existence of uncapped concessions opens charitable and community organisations to accusations of abuse if a small minority do not abide by the limits the sector has itself set. Most have seen fit to apply the 30 per cent limit encouraged by the taxation department. I note that this morning the Treasurer once again stated that the vast majority of charitable and community organisations were not involved in the rorting of FBT concessions. I think generally that is the case. The Treasurer stated that the government's primary concern is in the state public health systems where there has been widespread use of the FBT exemptions to shift costs from the states to the Commonwealth. For once, the Treasurer and I are in complete agreement. He is dead right. There is a major problem in the use of FBT concessions in state public health systems. The Commonwealth really does need to take a serious look at that problem.There is also the issue of making sure that we do not reduce hospital services. The concession, in my view, was never designed for the needs of the state public health system. It was designed to facilitate the needs of charitable and not-for-profit organisations.The other problem with uncapped concessions is that they have allowed governments to continually wind back the direct assistance they provide to the sector. State governments and the federal government have advised charitable and community organisations to move into salary packaging and use of the FBT exemption in order to stretch shrinking budgets. These organisations have been caught between their need to meet increasing demands on their services by the disadvantaged and government budgets that are either frozen or declining. The answer has been to expand the use of the FBT concessions—a perfectly natural response, but one that has led to a real growth in the use of that concession.The government's proposal presents a serious problem. On the basis of its own figures, the changes to the FBT exemption will raise over $100 million a year from charitable and community organisations as a result of the proposed limit on FBT concessions. The impact will be to pull $100 million out of the sector. I note the Prime Minister the other day, in his speech about philanthropy, thought that even on his best estimates the use of philanthropy may provide $50 to $70 million a year in the longer term into the sector.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Tax driven.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Tax driven. But what is the point of doing that? Are we pulling out $100 million from the sector and hoping that philanthropy will fill the hole? That clearly is not the answer. We have to deal with the fact that the withdrawal of the FBT concessions will have very serious impacts on the industry, that on the government's own figures—and I am not sure of the veracity of those figures, but the industry certainly supports the argument of the severity of the impact—$100 million will be drawn out of the sector. That can have only one impact in the charitable and not-for-profit sector: they must reduce services. There are no other answers for that sector. The impact of taking that sort of money out of the sector is that they will reduce the services to the poor and to the needy.This evidence was presented at great length before the Senate Community Affairs References Committee during their GST inquiry. Groups such as the Spastic Centre of New South Wales, the Wesley Central Mission, the WA Deaf Society and a whole range of charitable and not-for-profit organisations have given evidence as to the impact of this measure on their activities. These organisations will service fewer deaf children, they will provide fewer meals, they will care for fewer poor people and they will provide fewer homes for the homeless. All the basic fundamental works that charities and the not-for-profit sector provide in this country will be diminished as a result of this measure.We cannot accept that that impact will be applied to the sector. We have to do something about it. The Industry Commission provided some guidance, as I said earlier, in that they identified that the government, in closing the exemption, would have to fund assistance to the charitable sector to make up for the assistance removed. The problem has grown much bigger since then. Obviously, the size of compensation required has grown much larger, even if we only go down to the sort of limit proposed by the government. They are not going as far as the Industry Commission recommended in terms of removing the exemption altogether, but what we must do as a parliament is address the very real concerns raised by the charitable and not-for-profit sector on the impact or disadvantage in our society of this taxation measure.The bills are not currently before the parliament. I understand they will be introduced some time later this year. What I think is important is that we begin to have the debate about how we ought to respond. I make it very clear that the Labor Party is still committed to the capping of the exemption and providing the accountability and transparency in this measure that has been lacking. It cannot be allowed to continue in the current state.The real issue for us is the impact on the sector and on the sector's ability to deliver to the disadvantaged, the needy, the poor and the disabled in our community. Their very proper and important role in the community will be diminished by this measure unless we take steps to ensure that the efficiency of the overall sector is not impaired by this taxation measure.The Labor Party is willing to play its role in that. I note that the Democrats indicated in their minority report on the GST inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee the other day that they have concerns about the impact of the proposed change to the FBT limits. Labor Party senators—me included—in compiling the majority report raised the problem and highlighted the needs of the sector if this FBT limit were to be pursued. The government now has the opportunity to listen and respond to those concerns raised by the sector and highlighted in the Senate community affairs committee report.We need to find the appropriate balance between the joint public policy outcomes of a proper, transparent and accountable system in terms of the FBT exemption and the needs of the charities and community service organisations to deliver to the disadvantaged in our society. All of us, Labor and Liberal state governments included, are culpable for allowing the situation to get to this point. All governments have encouraged organisations to take advantage of the FBT concession in order to stretch their budgets to provide very necessary and essential services.What we need now is a solution to the problem of the impact on the sector. The Labor Party is prepared to play its role in providing leadership. But what is desperately required is for the government to analyse properly the needs of the sector, listen to their concerns about the impact of limiting of the concession, and work with the sector to find ways of meeting their funding needs to continue to provide the vital services that they provide in our community. As I say, a range of issues were raised in the community affairs committee GST report that need the attention of the government and of parliament. There is the wider issue of the charitable sector and its taxation treatment generally. There is the FBT exemption limit proposal, which I have discussed at some length today. There is also the broader debate about the role the not-for-profit sector ought to play in our community and whether the government is continuing to encourage the constructive and necessary role that that sector provides in our community. This obviously relates to the government's intentions in relation to philanthropy in the community and the role of business in contributing to the charitable and not-for-profit sector.So there is a wide range of debates that we need to have. I hope I have highlighted some of those issues today. I do not pretend to have all the answers. In terms of the FBT issue, I want to signal that, while the Labor Party remains committed to supporting the proposed exemption, the government has to address the very real problem of the impact on the charitable sector. We have to do something about ensuring that the sector can continue to provide the services to the needy and disadvantaged in our community. We cannot go on blindly supporting the tax policy changes without assessing the real impact on that sector and, more importantly, on the people that they serve.11:55:003576Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are discussing the appropriation bills which are the legal mechanism for approving government expenditure. I want to make some comments in my contribution to this debate on that theme: the issue of the tax base that provides the revenue for government expenditure and the allegations that have been constantly made about the eroding, broken, indirect tax base—in particular the wholesale sales tax. If we look at the Liberal government's document Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system , commonly known as the ANTS package, we see on page 8:The current tax system is ineffective. It provides a crumbling base from which to derive the necessary revenue to fund the essential government services . . .It goes on:The indirect tax base would continue to decline, rates would need to be increased again, and this debilitating cycle would continue.This is part of the continual campaign by the Liberal government which claims that the current indirect tax system, and particularly the wholesale sales tax system, is broken. That is a claim that is repeated over and over again. In my contribution to this debate I wish to contend that that claim by the Liberal government is fundamentally false. We continue to have claims from the Treasurer, Mr Costello, from the head of Treasury, Mr Evans, and from a range of others that the tax system is broken. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on A New Tax System examining the new tax system and particularly the goods and services tax, we have had a range of submissions from business organisations which repeat the claim that the current indirect tax system is broken. The Business Coalition for Tax Reform, which is prominent in its support of the Liberal government's tax reforms, said on page 6 of its submission:Over time the present indirect tax base will continue to erode calling into question the longer-term ability of our tax system to provide sufficient revenue to fund the public expenditure through which we finance the health, education and welfare services which are at the heart of the fairness of our community.It went on:Leaving the present indirect tax system in place will subject the indirect tax base to ongoing erosion in a relative sense.Invariably business organisations make this claim and invariably it is not backed up by any substantial research. A long list of assertions is usually given with no hard data to back up the claim. One of the interesting asides in the quote that I have just read to the Senate is that there is an irony in the claims made by both business and this government that we need to bolster the tax base in order to fund health, education and welfare services. The irony is that this government and, indeed, most business groups continue to call for a reduction in expenditure in these areas.I would like to go to the definition of what is meant by the words `broke' or `broken'. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary refers to `broke' as `without money, penniless, ruined, bankrupt'. The definition of `broken' is `separated forcibly into parts, in fragments, fractured, shattered, burst, split, not intact, financially ruined, bankrupt'. The community view of the definition of `broke' or `broken' would not be substantially different from the definition I have read to the Senate. What is the evidence to back up the propaganda campaign—and it is little more than propaganda—and the claim by this government that the current indirect tax system, particularly the wholesale sales tax, is broken?Firstly, I refer to the first report of the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System. We commissioned Professor Dixon to, amongst other things, examine the current and projected revenue from the current indirect tax system. I read from page 199 of that report. He says:ANTS . . . implies that a major change in indirect taxation is necessary because, without increases in tax rates, the present array of indirect taxes will raise insufficient revenue in relation to Australia's future public sector requirements. However ANTS includes no explicit revenue forecasts.I will come to that issue a little later. The report continues:We find no evidence to support the ANTS proposition. As shown in Chart 10.1, in our basecase forecasts, indirect taxes collected by the whole of the public sector grow slightly faster than GDP. These forecasts were made with no changes in ad valorem tax rates.The bulk of indirect taxes are collected on consumption and intermediate usage of goods and services. In our basecase forecasts collection of consumption taxes is projected to grow at about the same rate as GDP. Amongst the main contributors to these taxes are some fast-growing consumption items (e.g. Electronic equipment, Scientific equipment, Cars, and Entertainment) and some slow-growing items (e.g. Tobacco, Beer and Other Alcoholic drinks).What Professor Dixon does here is identify an issue that is often missed in the criticisms of the wholesale sales tax. The claim is made that the wholesale sales tax is outmoded, it is tied to manufacturing and it is declining and that is one of the reasons we should have a goods and services tax. But Professor Dixon touches on the fundamental fact that the current wholesale sales tax—albeit indirectly—is linked to an expanding services economy. By attaching a wholesale sales tax to areas such as electronic equipment, scientific equipment, cars and entertainment, it is in effect linked to the expanding services economy. That is one reason Professor Dixon correctly identifies the fact that the current indirect taxation regime will not decline in terms of its collection of revenue.I would like to refer to further evidence that the current wholesale sales tax is robust in nature. One of the critical documents that has recently been released is a press release of 4 February from the Minister for Finance and Administration entitled `Commonwealth government statement of financial transactions, December 1998'. He attached to that press release a table analysing revenue from sales tax which showed that, for the six months to 31 December 1998, sales tax revenue increased from $7.158 billion to $7.799 billion—an increase of nine per cent. That is almost twice the rate of growth of the economy at the present time. The claim is made that the current wholesale sales tax system is broken, that it is declining, but in the last six-month period for which we have up-to-date figures it is actually going gang busters—a nine per cent increase in the wholesale sales tax. Minister Fahey rightly and proudly boasted:Tax revenue collections for the six months to December 1998 were 10.3 per cent above collections in the same period last year . . . On that very same day, the Treasurer, Mr Costello, said, `There is nobody in Australia that believes the Australian taxation system is working.' He said that on the very same day. He went on to say that anyone who thought the tax system was working must come from another planet. He obviously forgot to check with his own minister for finance on the day he was making these claims because, clearly, the minister for finance thinks the tax system is working very well indeed.We can go to further evidence about the effective nature of the revenue raising ability of the current indirect tax system. We need look no further than the government's own ANTS document, on page 33. The revenue measures table lists the loss of government revenue as a result of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and its replacement by a goods and services tax. In 2000-01 the loss of revenue from the WST is a negative $15.3 billion, in 2001-02 it is minus $17.7 billion and in 2002-03 it is minus $18.75 billion. In the relatively limited amount of forward forecasts that we have, from the government's own ANTS document it is apparent that there is going to be an increase in revenue from the wholesale sales tax—rising from $15.3 billion to $18.75 billion ending 2002-03. There is absolutely no hard data or analysis that the current wholesale sales tax, let alone the current indirect tax system, is in crisis or broke or broken.Access Economics responded to the claims made by Professor Dixon in his report commissioned by the Senate GST committee. Access Economics carried out some analysis of the current wholesale sales tax system—I think this was done, in part, in response to Professor Dixon's claims—and they claimed, in effect, that there would be a decline in the collection of revenue from the current indirect tax system. But if you look at their research carefully—it is titled `Is the Existing Tax System Broken?'—Access destroys the foundation of the claim that the system is broken.As I said earlier, the Treasurer has always claimed that the sales tax is the weak link in the Commonwealth indirect tax base. The Access research shows that in fact it is the most robust source of Commonwealth indirect revenue into the future. Access claimed that it was eroding by 0.018 per cent of gross domestic product per year, or around $100 million in current money terms. I do not accept Access's claims, but when you look for solid and substantial research that the wholesale sales tax system is in decline, Access says that at worst it is declining by $100 million a year. As a figure standing alone, that sounds like a lot of money, but in the context of the Commonwealth government's current revenue base of $150 billion a year, it is only 0.07 per cent—less than one-tenth of one per cent of current government revenue. It is a minuscule amount, even if we accept the Access Economics figures.The erosion attributed to the wholesale sales tax is only 20 per cent of that claimed to occur in the Commonwealth indirect tax base. Therefore, by only replacing the wholesale sales tax, the ANTS package cannot credibly fix the problem which the Treasurer claims—and I say claims falsely—exists. If he were really trying to address a loss of long-term indirect tax revenue, the last Commonwealth indirect tax he would look at scrapping would be the wholesale sales tax, because its erosion is less than all other indirect taxes, on the basis of the Access Economics report.Interestingly, the case for retaining the existing state indirect tax base is made strongly in the report. It claims the erosion of the complete state indirect tax base is also negligible—totalling around 0.026 per cent of gross domestic product, or $150 million in current terms. The report makes another interesting observation, and that is the erosion of revenue from tariffs as a consequence of cuts in the rates of tariffs where there is significant erosion of the indirect tax base. But the Access report is hardly evidence that the tax system is collapsing.The Labor senators on the Senate select committee—Senators Cook, Conroy and I—have on occasions attempted to find out more about Treasury's long-term forecasts in this area. At the recent Senate estimates hearings, Senator Conroy and I were pursuing this issue about the long-term projections for the current indirect tax system. When we referred to the strength of the current wholesale sales tax, Mr Tilley from the Treasury admitted that `it is a high figure'. This was in reference to the increase in the wholesale sales tax.We went on to question Treasury about what the long-term revenue estimates were from the wholesale sales tax. Initially, Mr Tilley was somewhat reluctant to acknowledge that any forward research had been done on this issue. It was only when I read out the names of two files from the budget revenue section of the Treasury index file list for the period to June 1998 and gave the title numbers of these files that Mr Tilley admitted that there was some research that had been done, up to the years 2003-04. You would think that, given this is such a central point in the current debate about the tax system, a Treasury official—and Mr Evans, the head of Treasury, was sitting in on this examination—would know what is in these index files about the future revenue projections for the indirect tax system. But no, they did not know. Even when we returned after lunch and I asked them whether they had checked these figures, they still were not willing or able to disclose the revenue projections. Clearly they are afraid of disclosing the revenue projections because they would undermine the continual and false claim made by the Treasurer that the current tax system is broken.As recently as last week the Tax Commissioner, Mr Carmody, appeared before the Senate committee inquiring into the tax system and was very willing to give information about the compliance costs of exempting food from a goods and services tax. That is his right. But when we proceeded to question Mr Carmody about the compliance costs associated with a goods and services tax and attempted to obtain some detail about the likely compliance costs—in particular the onerous burden on small business and the compliance costs of the current wholesale sales tax system—Mr Carmody could not answer. Here again we have an example of officials—in this case in the tax area and, as I mentioned earlier, in the Treasury—obfuscating, hiding, ducking or weaving with respect to critical information that is necessary in the context of the false claims being made about the current indirect tax system being broke or broken.This is a claim that is made continually, but it is a false claim. The current wholesale sales tax system is strong, it is robust and it is certainly not broke or broken—as evidenced by Professor Dixon, by Minister Fahey's own press release and by the figures in the government's own ANTS package. It simply is not correct to claim that it is broke or broken and that as a consequence we need a goods and services tax. This is one of those very false arguments that unfortunately has some currency in the general community, but it is a false argument nonetheless and it is no justification for the introduction of an unfair goods and services tax.12:15:003579Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I would like to draw to the attention of the Senate a matter of grave concern to some 350 of my constituents who were needlessly and senselessly locked out of their employment by an employer who is intent upon pursuing Mr Reith's industrial relations agenda in the meat industry. On 15 March some 350 employees of the firm G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd of Pakenham in Victoria received the following notice which said:Dear Employee,Please find enclosed a Notice of Protected Action in accordance with section 170MO of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 which advises that G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd, being your employer, will be taking protected action in the form of a lockout of all employees, including you, commencing Friday 19 March 1999. The lockout will continue indefinitely.The letter goes on to say:This lockout means that you will not be permitted or required to attend at or perform any work for G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd and will not be paid for the period of the lockout.These 350 workers at O'Connors in Victoria are the latest group of workers who are at risk of losing their livelihood as a direct result of this government's industrial relations policies. It is an issue of extreme importance to the working people of this country that this government's intention is to pursue its extremely damaging and partisan industrial relations agenda—an agenda which is quite simply aimed at crushing workers and depriving them of their capacity to organise through unions, and as a consequence driving down wages and conditions for working people in this country.It is not just workers themselves that are directly savaged by this gross attack upon the living conditions of Australians; there is a broader agenda being pursued which has enormously damaging consequences for the economy as a whole. In a newspaper article on 24 March 1999, Mr O'Connor acknowledged:G&K O'Connor is Victoria's second-largest beef processor and the biggest supplier of premium chilled beef to Japan. It has acknowledged that his action will cause a loss of revenue, potential damage to its brand overseas and sour its relationships with cattle suppliers across southern Australia.But Mr Reith and Mr O'Connor are quite happy to dismiss these profound consequences on a much wider range of workers than just the 350 workers who were employed at O'Connors. They are pursuing a much deeper agenda, which has been expressed on many occasions by Mr Reith, that is aimed at a program to reduce the wages and conditions of working people in this country. This government is quite clearly intent on repre senting the interests of employers to the exclusion of the legitimate rights and concerns of working people. In the past, Mr Reith has indicated that his assault upon the trade union movement will concentrate on four industries: the coalmining, building and construction, meat processing, and maritime industries. Despite his defeat against the MUA, Mr Reith has turned his attention to meatworkers and their families. This latest strategy is being enacted, through the actions of Mr O'Connor and his firm down in Pakenham, upon the 350 workers who are now being forced onto the dole queue.On Tuesday, 23 March, many of these workers gathered in my office. We are seeking to secure for them their legitimate entitlements through the social security system because this action has been undertaken by an employer using fully the powers of the Industrial Relations Act in a most ruthless manner. Under the present social security arrangements, workers are still entitled to social security protection when they have been locked out by their employer through no fault of their own. These are workers that have not engaged in industrial action. They have been subject to the ruthless abuse of this act by an employer who is currently faced with a downturn in the meat industry, and it suits his purpose to subdue the workers and to force them, on the basis of a strategy of starvation, to acquiesce to the claims of the company for reductions in wages and conditions.It is well known that the legal representatives of this firm, which have recently been identified as those that have been closely associated with Mr Reith, have sought through the Federal Court and the various arguments they have put to advance the case for the prerogative of employers to dispense with workers when and where they see fit and to use workers like they would any other commodity in the production chain. What we have witnessed here is a planned and unjustifiable action by an employer to use the present downturn in the meat industry to strike at the conditions of the meat industry workers in general. It has been an attempt to put private profit before the livelihood of workers and the welfare of many families in Victoria. If he is successful, this will have broader implications for workers right across Australia.As I have indicated, we have seen this sort of strategy being pursued in a range of industries. We saw recently in Victoria the use of the lockout in the textile industry at the Australian Die Co. We have seen other employers trying to use the draconian legislation that Mr Reith has championed for no reason other than to reduce the capacity of workers to protect themselves in the economy.We have seen a radical agenda being pursued, which has now been taken up by this particular company in the meat industry. It is unfortunate because O'Connors in Victoria have had a reputation in the past, up until recent times, of conducting themselves in a reasonable manner. As we all know, the meat industry is a particularly difficult area of industrial relations and one where I think questions are pursued with some vigour. But O'Connors have been known in the past to settle agreements on the basis of reasonable consultation. We saw that in the case of the 1995 agreement, which allowed for significant productivity gains to be made by the company and also for significant improvements for workers.However, with the advent of these actions through this federal government we have seen a complete change in the attitude of employers. In recent discussions we saw a modest claim by the workers employed by O'Connors for a three per cent wage rise over three years, with the productivity improvements of course to counterbalance that, being responded to by O'Connors in a most aggressive and brutal manner, demanding wage cuts of up to 17½ per cent. For some workers that means cuts of $170 per week. In the same article in the Age of 24 March, Mr O'Connor acknowledged this. He said:The company's proposals would translate into wage reductions for most employees, with more severe wage cuts for small segments of its workforce.You would have thought that with all the assistance O'Connors is getting from Mr Reith the spin doctors would have been thrown in as well to ensure that, in the lines put out to the public, the employer would adopt, as we have seen in most disputes, the claim of benefits for workers. In this case he is quite clearly acknowledging the substantial reduction in wages and conditions the company is attempting to impose upon workers of this particular meatworks in Victoria.The demands being made by the employer go to the reduction of overtime payments and public holiday entitlements, and, of course, the extension of working hours. The company is seeking greater productivity increases and is not interested in seeking any trade-offs in return for that. I think it is quite incomprehensible that these huge reductions in wages and entitlements are being sought by an employer who is seeking to use actions which will in themselves damage his own company and which will quite clearly damage the reputation of the Victorian meat industry, especially with international customers.As I say, I think what we have here is a case where this sort of callous and strategic attack upon the workers is aimed at a much broader agenda. The interests of individual workers and individual firms will be lost in this particular war. It will in fact be counterproductive and will produce quite a serious disadvantage for the meat industry in this country. This government believes that rewards for long-standing, long-serving workers in relatively low paid industries are to be put to one side. This government is actually pursing a policy of the casualisation of the work force. It believes that if it were the case that individual workers were not on a permanent enterprise arrangement they could be dismissed at will and then, of course, employers would receive maximum benefit—this is what they mean by flexibility in industrial relations!The lock-out has a particular advantage for bosses in this industry because it means that, if any seasonal downturn occurs in the meat industry, you can see workers off the plant without having to pay out their entitlements—their long service leave, holiday pay and other benefits that would have accumulated, which for many workers means very large sums of money. For employers, of course, that means substantial savings. The expectation is that workers will come back, begging to accept reduced wages and conditions that are being presented to them as a fait accompli.Nothing could be further from the truth—workers will defend their rights and living standards. They are entitled to do so as a result of a long history in this industry which has demonstrated again and again that it is the only way in which to maintain reasonable standards of living. This is a campaign that was outlined by Mr Reith in a speech to an employers conference last year. He indicated that the government was supporting attempts by employers to strip awards that meatworkers had enjoyed. For instance, he sought support from various companies, including the large American firm operating out of Queensland, ConAgra, or AMH, and he was seeking to use provisions of the federal industrial law to allow for the reduction of wages to the lowest common denominator in this country.This is important not just for the individual workers in Victoria who have been locked out at the moment but, as I say, for the industry as a whole. What is occurring here is that the fundamental question that arises again and again in this industry concerning the issue of competitiveness, which is alleged to be at the core of this dispute, is lost in the real issue—that is, the availability of stock. What has occurred is that a large firm, an international firm, has set up operations in Queensland which have seen the closure, as I understand it, of 10 sheds in that state already, and it is now reaching out through its uncompetitive practices to the destruction of the meat industry right throughout the eastern seaboard of Australia.The consequence of the various technological changes that have occurred in the transport industry is that the reach of this large American firm is extending right through from Queensland to Victoria. They are operating on the most minimum of wages and conditions and they are forcing changes in work practices in a way which will severely disadvantage meatworks throughout the country. As I say, there is a very simple fact that comes to the fore in the meat industry—that the conditions, prices and competitiveness of the Australian industry depend on the availab ility of stock. If one employer can secure a stranglehold over the supply of stock, they are able to secure a massive advantage over the rest of the industry. That is of course occurring on this particular occasion.We are being told that attempts to reduce the wages and conditions of workers by up to $170 a week are justified on the basis that there has to be greater competition with this large American firm operating out of Queensland. Various advices coming to this parliament through the Productivity Commission and others have been used to try to justify this sort of position. The truth of the matter is that the situation is a great deal more complex than the government or various individual employers will allow us to hear. As I say, Mr O'Connor could probably do with a bit of advice in terms of his publicity machine because he has let the cat out of the bag concerning his interests in this matter. What we have seen is that this government has tried to use the 20 allowable matters under the federal legislation to reduce the capacity of workers to effectively bargain and defend their conditions in this industry.It is abundantly clear that in the meat processing industry wages remain one of the smallest components of the total production cost. In the meat processing industry, only about 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the cost of production of meat to the consumer can be attributed to wages. If we examine a whole range of other factors, including transport and other overheads, if we examine the question of marketing, if we examine the question of training and if we examine other issues such as even the exchange rate, we see that there are a great many other factors that go into the price of meat in this country. But what we are being told is that, because meatworkers are the only ones who are vulnerable to this sort of attack, they are the ones who have to suffer the most in terms of attempts by the industry to restructure, to the benefit of the very large employers operating out of Queensland. For instance, 60 per cent of the production cost actually goes into the purchase of stock; 13 per cent goes on transport; and 27 per cent goes on processing of the meat, including a range of charges such as meat inspection, management fees and various other government charges, including workers compensation and payroll tax, and training and recruitment costs.The direct return to workers, that is, from wages, is estimated to be about 12 per cent of the total cost of production. On this basis, if we were to accept everything that employers may say about the capacity of meatworkers to effect the massive reductions that are being asked of them, the level of the cost reduction for individual consumers would amount to a few cents per kilo off the cost of meat. This government is using employers like O'Connors, and the Productivity Commission reports that we have discussed in this parliament on previous occasions, in an attempt to reduce the conditions of workers, because they are the only ones that are subject to those sorts of vulnerabilities and the only ones subject to the draconian measures of the Industrial Relations Act.It seems to me that the various reports we have been able to call upon are often presented in a most unrepresentative way. What has to be understood is that for individual workers the scientific studies are often lost in the argument about having to cope with a reduction in wages of $170 a week. The great modelling arguments that we hear among economists often do not take this basic fact into account. There are some 209 to 315 firms producing meat in this country, but for individual workers in each one of those plants the cost of reduction of wages of $170 a week to their families is substantial, while the advantage to consumers of employers getting away with their campaign is minimal. I repeat that the effect on the living standards of workers and their families is substantial.What needs to be understood is that in Australia the meat industry is extremely important. For many country towns, and particularly in many regional centres, employment in the meat industry remains very important. For individual workers, the capacity to actually be employed is highly significant. These attacks on workers themselves need to be understood in the context of the effect they are having on individuals in the industry. We have seen that the maintenance of quality, the cost controls associated with hygiene and the importance of industrial safety are often neglected when we are discussing these questions. We are told, of course, that there is a minority of dishonest and greedy employers who are endangering Australia's international reputation by embarking upon campaigns such as the one we see at O'Connors in Victoria. The studies that have been undertaken and that are often presented to this parliament to defend these sorts of positions, such as the Productivity Commission ones, quite simply do not take account of the consequences of the actions by government on workers and their families.I say to the Senate that a couple of weeks ago, when I saw my office full of meatworkers who are coming to terms with the cost of these sorts of policies to their individual lives, it brought home to me just how damaging these policies are. Workers are told that their only option is to take the dole for an indefinite period of time, if they are lucky, and I have got no doubt this government will try to prevent them from securing those entitlements. They are expected to live on a couple of hundred dollars a week and to sustain a family on that sort of money. One understands just how dreadful the social consequences are of pursuing the policies that this government is seeking to secure.We have got to appreciate in this parliament at all times the consequences on people of the policies that we are being asked to pursue. While the government may well get a majority in this parliament to allow these sorts of actions to be taken to turn individual workers into commodities and chattels of employers, when we have circumstances where the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission have been so savagely reduced, one at all times must bear in mind that it is the job of this parliament to express its concern and to take up the fight on behalf of workers whose wages and conditions are being so savagely undermined by the ruthless action of this government, in collusion with a number of employers seeking to take commercial advantage at the expense of so many Australians.12:35:003584Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Having listened to Senator Carr, I can only endorse his remarks at the end about the ruthless, callous nature of some of the actions and decisions of this government. Yesterday we saw a stark demonstration of the contempt that this coalition government has particularly for the hundreds of thousands of people living in the Sutherland Shire and nearby regions. Yesterday Minister Hill, the minister for the environment, announced that the government had decided to go ahead with the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.The government likes to describe this as a replacement reactor for the Lucas Heights reactor, because there is one there currently. In fact, there are two there: one of them is shut down, and the HIFAR reactor is due to close in the year 2004. But let us not be under any illusions: this is a decision for a new nuclear reactor, and the people of that region will be subjected to all of the problems attendant on such a disgraceful decision. It will involve as a minimum some $286 million on construction costs. That inevitably will blow out over time. On top of that, if this decision is ultimately implemented—and I predict a huge public outcry as people become aware of the implications of this decision—it means ongoing expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 50 to 100 years.The existing reactor was built in the mid-1950s. After 40 years, it is due to shut down. This new reactor will have a life of some 40 years, so you have all the ongoing maintenance costs and recurrent costs associated with operating this facility. On top of that you have the many millions of dollars associated with the decommissioning of the existing reactor and also, at the end of the next 40 years, the further problem of decommissioning this new reactor. So this is a decision which commits the federal government—this government and, no doubt, future governments if they are saddled with this decision—to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of public expenditure on the narrow area of nuclear research. Clearly, that is an area being recognised by other countries around the world as one which is now being replaced in many areas by other forms of technology.This decision has also been made without allowing time for the Senate committee to bring down its report, which has been scheduled for the end of April—next month. But evidence already produced to the Senate inquiry demonstrates that this government has ignored the very important recommendations of the McKinnon review which handed down its report in 1993. That review said a number of things and I will quote from its conclusions. It stated:If, at the end of a further period of about five years,. a high level waste site has been firmly identified and work started on proving its suitability. there is no evidence that spallation technology can economically offer as much as or more than a new reactor. . . . . . . . .it would be appropriate to make a positive decision on a new reactor.But unfortunately that work has not been done. There has not been a proper examination of alternative technologies to nuclear research. There has not been any proper consideration of alternative sites around Australia other than Lucas Heights.The simple decision has been made that, because there is already a reactor there, that is the most appropriate place to put a new reactor. But of course in 1958, when the existing reactor was first commissioned, Lucas Heights was considered to be a remote site from Sydney. There are now 100,000-plus people living within a short distance of that facility. That recommendation—to look at alternative sites—has been ignored. The Senate committee has sought information. The government has said, `Yes, we looked at some other sites but we're not going to tell you where we looked or what we looked at.' I do not believe they seriously looked at any alternatives.In his statement yesterday the minister attempts to rely upon emotional blackmail to justify this decision. He states that the new reactor will be used to produce `lifesaving radiopharmaceuticals'. I do not deny that the Lucas Heights facility produces medical isotopes and pharmaceuticals which are used for very good purposes and to good ends in assisting people suffering from serious illness. But it is a gross overstatement to suggest that because of that factor we need a new nuclear reactor and we need it at Lucas Heights.Evidence produced to the Senate committee demonstrated, for instance, that many medical isotopes can be produced by other means, such as cyclotrons. Secondly, many countries around the world do not have a nuclear reactor producing medical isotopes; they import them. Thirdly, if it is the case—as ANSTO and the minister argue—that you need this reactor at Lucas Heights to save lives, why is it not the case that every other major city in Australia or in the world does not have a reactor on their doorstep for this purpose? That is a gross overstatement and it distorts the real picture, but it is put to try and play upon people's concerns in this area of health.The trend is for nuclear research reactors around the world to be closed, not for new ones to be built. People in other countries are looking at new technologies such as spallation technology. This decision involves the expenditure of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that could well be used much more effectively by the medical and scientific communities of this country as we enter the new millennium and look at doing major research in health and science. Unfortunately, this government has not considered any of those other options before it has raced into this decision.I note that the time is approaching when we have to move quickly to another matter. I will have much more to say about this issue and I have no doubt that the community will have much more to say about it, just as they had when this government tried to put a new airport into this area—at Holsworthy—but was forced to back down. I seek leave to continue my remarks later on this most important matter.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills3585s2093585Motion (by Senator Heffernan, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to the environment, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Heffernan) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.358512:44:003585Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Fundamentally, the purpose of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 (the bill) is:. to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act) to implement the 1996 Protocol (the Protocol) to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (the London Convention); and. to amend the Sea Installations Act 1987 (the Sea Installations Act) to remove the prohibitions on issuing, and varying, a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an adjacent area (which, generally speaking, is an area of Commonwealth waters adjacent to State coastal waters).Indicative of the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation of Australia's marine environment, the bill will also include a number of additional amendments to the Sea Dumping Act that are intended to simplify, encourage compliance with, and the enforcement of, the Sea Dumping Act.The Sea Dumping ActUnder the Sea Dumping Act, Australia fulfils its obligations as one of 74 Contracting Parties to the London Convention.The London Convention is aimed at promoting the effective control of pollution of the marine environ ment, by regulating the dumping of waste that is liable to: create hazards to human health; to harm living resources and marine life; to damage amenities; or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.It embodies a complicated framework for regulating the dumping into the sea, based on a list of substances for which dumping is prohibited and list of substances requiring special care, and the incineration at sea based on incineration guidelines.The London Convention generally does not, however, apply in respect of:. vessels and platforms entitled to sovereign immunity under international law;. the disposal of wastes or other matter derived from, or incidental to, the normal operations of a vessel, aircraft or platform; or. the disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to, the exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources.In summary, therefore, the Sea Dumping Act currently regulates activities involving:. dumping into the sea;. incineration at sea; and. loading for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea;from, or on, a vessel, aircraft or platform in, or above, Australian waters, and the regulation of these same activities from, or on, an Australian vessel or an Australian aircraft, anywhere at sea, or above the sea.The proposed construction of artificial reefs is also assessed, and permitted, under this act, although the legal basis to do so in all cases, has been somewhat uncertain.On 25 March 1998, Australia signed the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, which entirely supersedes the London Convention.Under the Protocol Contracting Parties are obliged to take effective measures, according to their scientific, technical and economic capabilities, to reduce and where practicable eliminate pollution caused by the dumping into the sea or incineration at sea of wastes or other matter.The Protocol embodies a more modern and comprehensive, and yet simplified, regulatory framework which aims to provide greater protection to the marine environment.It provides a list of seven categories of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping at sea. These are:. dredged material;. sewage sludge; . fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fish processing operations;. vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea;. inert, inorganic geological material;. organic material of natural origin; and. bulky items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials for which the concern is physical impact, and limited to those circumstances where such wastes are generated at locations, such as small islands with isolated communities, having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping.The Protocol also prohibits incineration at sea and the export of substances for dumping into the sea or incineration at sea, although it is important to note that there is an emergency situation exemption in respect of these dumping and incineration rules.Furthermore, the general exemptions contained in the London Convention, as outlined above, are also incorporated in the Protocol.At of 23 February 1999 there were five Contracting Parties to the Protocol (Denmark, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Vanuatu).Passage of the bill will satisfy Australia's legislative requirements for ratifying the Protocol. It will reinforce the Commonwealth's commitment to the preservation of Australia's marine environment, and Australia's standing as an international leader in responsible environmental promotion and protection.Additionally the bill will also revise the substantive offence provisions in the Sea Dumping Act, in relation to dumping into the sea, incineration at sea and loading for dumping or incineration at sea, and include new offences in respect of the unauthorised creation of artificial reefs and the export for dumping or incineration at sea.A person engaging in activities constituting an offence against any of these revised or new offences, will be liable to a penalty of up to:. 10 years imprisonment, a fine of 2000 penalty units (approx $210 000), or both, where the material involved (ie the material dumped into the sea) includes seriously harmful material, which will include radioactive material and any other material (to be) prescribed by the regulations;. 2 years imprisonment, a fine of 500 penalty units (approx $55 000), or both, where the material involved includes non-Annex 1 material (ie is outside the category of substances that may be considered for dumping under the Protocol); and . 1 year imprisonment, a fine of 250 penalty units (approx $27 500), or both, in any other case.Corporations convicted of offences against these revised provisions will, in accordance with the Crimes Act, be liable to up to five times these penalties.To ensure consistency between offence provisions in Commonwealth legislation, the bill will also apply Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to the offences under the Sea Dumping Act.Significantly the bill will also put it beyond doubt that the Commonwealth has the responsibility for regulating the construction of artificial reefs, and will limit the potential liability of the Commonwealth, and Departmental officers exercising powers under the Sea Dumping Act, in relation to artificial reefs.The bill will apply the Sea Dumping Act to Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), rather than, as is currently provided, the Australian Fishing Zone.The bill will revise the defence force exemption as agreed between the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Defence, and revise the exemption in relation to the naval, military or air forces of a foreign country, in accordance with international law.The bill will simplify the section 9 rollback provision which authorises the Minister administering the Sea Dumping Act to make a declaration regarding the application of that act to a State or the Northern Territory.Recognising that officers of the Australian Customs Service have the expertise, and are generally well placed, to assist in the enforcement of the provisions of the Sea Dumping Act, the bill will amend the act to include these officers as ex officio inspectors for the purposes of the Sea Dumping Act.Finally, the bill will also include a number of machinery nature amendments designed to simplify the Sea Dumping Act.The Sea Installations ActThe Sea Installations Act was enacted to:. ensure that sea installations installed in adjacent areas are operated with regard to the safety of the people using them and of the people, ships and aircraft, near them;. to apply appropriate laws in relation to such installations; and. to ensure that such installations are operated in a manner that is consistent with the protection of the environment.A sea installation refers to any man-made structure that when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed, or when floating, can be used for an environment related activity.An environment related activity is defined to include any activity relating to:. tourism or recreation;. the carrying on of a business; or. the exploration and exploitation of the living resources of the sea, the seabed or the subsoil of the sea bed.The Sea Installations Act does not, however, generally include fishing installations, some exploration installations (eg such as installations and pipelines used by the petroleum industry), defence installations and some cable installations.The act applies in respect of an adjacent area of a State or affected Territory, which, in general terms, are the Commonwealth waters from three nautical miles out from the territorial sea baseline, out to the outermost limits of Australian waters. It does not apply in respect of sea installations located wholly within State coastal waters.The proposed Basslink Interconnector cable, which will link Tasmania to the National Electricity Market by means of a submarine electricity cable across Bass Strait, will be a sea installation for the purposes of the Sea Installations Act.As such, the lawful installation and use of the Basslink cable will require a permit, or exemption certificate, to be issued under that act.At present the Sea Installations Act prohibits the issuing of a permit that would authorise a sea installation to be located partly within and partly outside an adjacent area. There is also some uncertainty in relation to the validity of issuing of an exemption certificate for such an installation.The bill will amend the Sea Installations Act to remove these permitting prohibitions, and the uncertainty in relation to the issuing of exemption certificates.This will remedy the unworkable situation of, on the one hand, proposals falling within the scope of the Sea Installations Act and, on the other hand, that act not conferring sufficient powers upon the administering Minister to regulate or exempt these same proposals.The issuing of a permit under the Sea Installations Act for the Basslink proposal will provide a secure trigger for the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (the EPIP Act), and thereby ensure a secure legal basis for the Commonwealth's involvement in the environmental impact assessment stage of the Basslink project.The Tasmanian Government has called for expressions of interest for the construction and operation of the Basslink Interconnector cable, and it is currently anticipated that the successful tender will be announced in November 1999.It is therefore highly desirable that passage of the bill occur as soon as possible, and prior to the conclusion of the tender process, to enable the issuing of a permit for this proposal under the SI Act, and the subsequent designation of a proponent under the EPIP Act.ConclusionPassage of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 will reaffirm Australia's commitment to the protection of the marine environment by implementing the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention.Passage of the bill will also increase the likelihood that all sea installations installed in an adjacent area are operated with regard to safety, and in a manner consistent with the protection of the environment, by enabling permit conditions to also be imposed in respect of installations located both within, and outside, an adjacent area.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Matters of Public Interest358810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.358812:45:003588Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I rise to make some remarks about a matter of importance for a great number of Australians, some 50,000 or so every year, whose marriages end in separation and divorce. Significant steps were taken yesterday in the important policy areas of matrimonial property reform and in superannuation and family law. The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, has released a discussion paper titled `Property and family law—options for change.' It identifies two options for reforming allocation of matrimonial property law. In a joint announcement with the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, Senator Jocelyn Newman, the Attorney has announced that the government will reform superannuation and family law to give separated couples greater choice and certainty in settling their financial affairs. I want to deal with each of these issues in turn. Firstly, the need for reform of the way in which matrimonial property is distributed when couples divorce has been identified in a number of reviews carried out in the 1980s and 1990s. Some of the recurring criticisms are that the system provides unpredictable results, making it very difficult to advise parties as to the outcome of their applications to the court; that decisions based on discretion—that is, a judge's idea of what is fair and equitable—produce uneven, arbitrary outcomes; that there are in-built biases that favour one or other party; and that the current separate property regime that means until a court decides or parties otherwise agree each party retains the property that he or she had prior to the marriage, and any property acquired in separate names during the marriage, produces unfair results.Although the court has had a broad discretion to reallocate property interests—based on a range of factors such as length of marriage, age of children and what resources each party has to meet their needs and fulfil their obligations—the separate property regime is thought not to reflect changes that have taken place in society that suggest that more appropriate and responsive ways of dividing up family property are warranted. Undoubtedly, since the inception of the Family Law Act in 1976 the family unit and social mores have changed significantly. The discussion paper identifies a growing recognition and acceptance that both parties to a marriage make an equal contribution to the family, whether as an income earner, a homemaker, a child carer or a combination of all these roles.Secondly, an increasing tendency to cohabit prior to marriage and to have children at a later age has also had a marked effect, and obviously impacts when it comes to dividing up property when children are very young. Perhaps the most significant change is the increased participation of women in the work force, which has led to women making significant financial contributions as well as making their traditional contribution in the home and looking after children.Although not identified in the report, I can add from my own now distant experience as a family law practitioner that the increasing incidence of blended families has changed the whole dynamics of family relationships, including a fair regime for the treatment of contributions made to the marriage and property brought into the marriage, and the complications of property settlement for first spouses and first families whilst allowing a provider some ability to establish a new family.Two options for reform have been put forward for discussion. The first is a separate property regime, very similar to the one we currently have. The major difference between this option and the current law is that the starting point for the distribution of the property would be the principle of equal sharing. That is based on the assumption that each party had contributed equally to the property. The court would however retain its discretion, and rightly so, to depart from the equal sharing principle when it would produce an unfair result—for example, if one party owned a home prior to marriage and perhaps the marriage had only survived for a very short time.The second option, which is very interesting and much more radical, is the community of property regime under which communal assets are divided. They are defined to be assets acquired during a period of living together or marriage by each of the parties, whether they acquired them separately or jointly, and the net increase in value over the period the parties lived together of all the property that has been acquired. On marriage breakdown, each party would get 50 per cent of the communal assets. There would be no need for the usual protracted case that we have at the moment where we look at what each party has contributed. However, there would be an ability for the court to depart from the fifty-fifty sharing in certain circumstances.This is the regime that applies in some states in America, perhaps most infamously in California. However, most of the states retain separate property regimes. The Californian community property system is based on the idea of marriage as a partnership. The starting point for determining whether property is community or separate is the general rule that property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is community property. There are obviously some exceptions such as property acquired by way of a gift or inheritance by one party only; property acquired by using the separate property of one or other of the parties; and property acquired after the parties have split up or the parties make it separate property by agreement—prenuptial agreements and otherwise.One consequence of defining communal property as being property acquired during the time parties lived together is that property built up in an earlier marriage would be excluded. Property that often comes into contention is that which has been in the family for generations. For example, as frequently happens, a family farm or business would be excluded. This would provide immediate but not absolute protection for prior owned property of that kind. It is an interesting option to consider and one that the government has invited consultation on and submissions about.The proposed reforms to superannuation and family law are also long overdue. The problems were flagged over 10 years ago, and yet nothing was done by the previous government to address the unfairness that many divorced parties suffered by the Family Court being unable to deal directly with superannuation. Under the proposed reforms couples will be able to make binding superannuation arrangements which will apply if the relationship fails. Where partners cannot agree—with or without mediation or counselling, which is also part of the regime—the Family Court will have jurisdiction to decide how accumulated superannuation entitlements can be apportioned fairly and equitably and also to direct superannuation trustees to divide superannuation in the name of one or the other spouses between them. Superannuation trustees will either create a new account or arrange a rollover of the new interest in the superannuation fund, otherwise the superannuation interest will be preserved as if it had never been divided.The reform proposals outlined in the paper are limited to superannuation in the so-called accumulation phase—that is, the period before the member spouse has become eligible to receive a benefit. The superannuation proposals therefore have two core components. The key reform is the establishment of a regime to enable superannuation interests to be divided. This is not an option that is currently available to separating parties nor to the Family Court if the parties seek a decision from the court. That is why it is necessary to make legislative changes to make it possible.To date, the Family Court has been able to deal with superannuation only by trading it off or offsetting it against other property entitlements—that is, looking at the entire property that might be available to one or other of the parties and setting it off against some other asset. Of course, that can lead to great injustice and unfairness because superannuation could be the biggest asset the parties have and you often find that the spouse with the superannuation entitlement is left with very little to live on.There is great difficulty for and unfairness to the non-superannuated party in assessing the full value of an interest. That happens particularly, for example, in a defined benefit superannuation account. The objective of this reform is twofold. Firstly, the reform will increase the financial options available for couples in the event of marriage breakdown and provide parties with greater flexibility to meet their current and future needs. Secondly, by taking into account the full value of the superannuation interests of both spouses, the reform increases the ability of the court to make more equitable property settlements.To facilitate this process for the court, this legislation would establish a presumption that the superannuation interests of the parties built up during the time they have lived together would be divided equally between them. In defined circumstances the court would be able to depart from the presumption of a fifty-fifty split of superannuation. This would be, for example, where the interest was too small; where there were multiple superannuation interests—both spouses may have more than one; where there were concerns perhaps in relation to housing for children and others; or where an income producing asset such as a business might be required to be sold. In these types of cases the fifty-fifty split of superannuation would be achieved by allowing former spouses to trade off other matrimonial property of equal value from their entitlement to a future share of superannuation, much as is the case at present.The central reform of the proposal—to enable the division of superannuation between former spouses in the event of matrimonial breakdown—has received widespread support from the superannuation industry. I recall making a contribution in this place over a year ago on this very topic. Since that time, the proposals have been out with the superannuation industry and others for comment, and the response has been overwhelmingly in favour.A key aspect of the proposals is the ability to arrive at a proper valuation of the superannuation interest. In the case of accumulation schemes it is pretty straightforward, as the valuation is determined by contributions made plus the interest earned less the administrative charges. But as I mentioned a little earlier, in the case of defined benefits schemes, the legislation will prescribe a set of valuation factors to enable parties to arrive at a value which reflects the true worth of the superannuation interest. Indeed, trying to calculate the payout of a future entitlement when the scheme has been a defined benefits one has been a serious problem in the past. It is proposed that parties who divide their superannuation interests on marriage breakdown will be taxed at the point at which they become entitled to a payout, as if each had accumulated the superannuation in their own names. No tax would be payable at the point of division—at a time when the parties usually most desperately need some financial assistance.It is proposed that non-contributing spouses would be required to preserve their interest—that is, to hold the interest until they retire or satisfy some other condition of release. The usual provisions governing release of benefits on severe hardship grounds would apply to the superannuation interests transferred to non-contributing spouses.I have already said that these reform proposals are well overdue. The options for reform of matrimonial property division are now out for discussion. The superannuation proposals have been extensively canvassed. Together, these two initiatives will go a considerable distance towards addressing inequities in family law that are of concern to so many Australians and towards bringing about greater fairness and certainty for the many thousands of Australian couples and their children who suffer the emotional heartbreak, the social dislocation and the financial hardship of separation and divorce.Miscellaneous359113:00:003591Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I raise an important matter of public consideration today, an issue of even greater relevance given the dreadful performance of the New South Wales Liberal Party since December last year.For some time now the Labor opposition has been highlighting the insidious and corrupting influence of Mark Textor on the Liberal Party, federal and state, and his growing influence on broad public policy in this country. We now have further evidence of his application of wedge politics within the Liberal Party, of the tactics of division and betrayal to achieve personal and political ends, no matter what the cost.Today I want to examine the public subsidisation of Mark Textor's political machinations through massive federal government contracts, all undertaken with a blatant political subtext. I also want to examine Mark Textor's recent claim that he is not political at all but is instead a `techno-dweeb', only interested in the interrelationship between public opinion and public policy. In my view, the deliberate blurring of the distinction between opinion and policy is so directly a product of Mark Textor's influence over today's Liberal Party it should become known as `Textorisation'.First, we should recap what the public now knows about the Prime Minister's preferred pollster, Mark Textor, and those who knowingly consort with him. We know that Mark Textor has learned research strategies from extreme right Republican identities in the US like the Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin. We know that Textor devised a scheme to im properly siphon off Northern Territory taxpayers' money to fund Country-Liberal Party political research. We know that he implemented this fraud on the taxpayer in the lead-up to a number of Northern Territory elections in the early 1990s, using legitimate polling companies like Brian Sweeney and Associates and Newspoll.We know that leading CLP politicians such as Marshall Perron and Shane Stone encouraged Textor to uncover divisive community issues to exploit during election campaigns like the infamous `two sets of laws' lie. We know that Textor himself ran a number of focus groups in Darwin in April 1993, being paid by the Northern Territory taxpayer but conducting outright political research for the Country-Liberal Party. We know that, contrary to the ethics of the market research profession, Textor plied focus group participants with alcohol, lied to them about his client and about the purpose for filming the group, and failed to inform the participants that they were being observed from another room by a number of political operatives.We know that, in conjunction with Shane Stone and DDB Needham, Textor devised and implemented a push-polling strategy in the 1994 Northern Territory election, deliberately telling lies about Labor Party candidates. We know that Textor admitted his involvement in the push-polling strategy implemented by Andrew Robb and the federal Liberal Party in the 1995 Canberra by-election, and was forced to pay significant damages to the ALP candidate. We know that Textor's influence in the Liberal Party federal secretariat has been growing with close involvement in the 1996 and 1998 federal campaigns. And, finally, we know that during the 1998 campaign, while he was the in-house pollster at the very right hand of the Prime Minister, he was given a very short-term contract to provide polling for the Bulletin magazine, a contract which lasted only for the duration of the campaign itself. These published polls graphically showed the gross incompetence of Textor and his polling methods.This has been the learning curve of Mark Textor—a potent and corrupting mixture of lies, push polling and abuse of public funds for base political ends. This lengthy political apprenticeship has resulted in Textor receiving a number of significant federal departmental contracts in recent times, and all of these have a stench about them.Textor's influence over the Liberals becomes more pervasive and pernicious with every contract that he scores with the Liberal Party and the federal government. For example, Textor received the contract to undertake polling for the Natural Heritage Trust advertising campaign in the run-up to the federal poll last year. This contract, worth $125,945, was delivered to Textor at the express request of Ms Jane Seaborn, a consultant who was engaged to oversee the campaign and who is a Liberal Party apparatchik and former staffer to both John Hewson and Andrew Peacock. We ask: how much of the information gained during this publicly funded research found its way to the Liberal Party so they could gauge the strength and nature of the environmental vote during the election campaign?Textor had already received $42,000 as the focus group researcher for the notorious waterfront campaign with its extremely ideological focus on smashing the union movement in one of Australia's most important industries. Again, Textor was awarded a contract to undertake the research for the now infamous Minister Reith `thousand flowers' letter to the Prime Minister. And Peter Reith has finally come clean on his sleazy little deal with Textor. The research contract entitled `Public attitudes to further workplace reform' lies at the heart of that minister's grand plan for disenfranchising Australia's workers, and is worth up to $340,000 with an extra $35,000 available for travel. Thirty-five thousand dollars for travel! That amount gets you to Perth and back 43 times! And this contract is with the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Labour Ministers Council.While Textor conducted the focus groups in June and July last year prior to the election, he did not deliver his formal report until November. But, given the Northern Territory precedents, we ask: did another report, or the research results themselves, go straight into the Liberal Party prior to the election cam paign where voter attitudes on industrial relations and the role of trade unions is always a wedge issue for the Liberal Party, an issue to divide the community and be exploited for political ends as a Textor speciality?In undertaking this research for Minister Reith, Textor conducted a massive focus and marketing campaign on the attitudes of Australians to unions and individual workplace agreements. At the same time we have seen a dramatic increase in the anti-worker drivel uttered by prominent Liberals who are out to demonise the union movement. There has been an exponential increase in this derision around the country and in this parliament, and for evidence of that you need look no further than Senator Alston who, on hearing the word `union', slobbers like a pavlovian dog. One has to ask if focus testing is informing this strategy of derision.In total, Mark Textor has been the beneficiary of federal government contracts to the tune of over $540,000 in the last 12 months. Every dollar of taxpayers' funds he misappropriates, every polling exercise he conducts, every focus group he and his company select and dissect means that opinion is drawn out through the gatekeeper, Mark Textor, and entrenched in Liberal Party policy. And we know how selectively he draws opinion out and actively shapes the opinion of the research participants with the notorious Textor tapes from the Northern Territory where he lied to justify his ends.Sections of the Liberal Party starting with the Prime Minister are transfixed with the polling that Textor produces. Mr Howard thinks it is gold, but it is fool's gold. This Prime Minister has degraded the high office he holds by actively encouraging the influence of polling research on the direction of Australian public policy. This `Textorisation' of public policy has made the Prime Minister turn his back on the reconciliation process and to decide to be abrasive and deliberately hostile to the community aspirations of not only our indigenous people but millions of Australians who recognise their aspirations and just want Mr Howard to say `Sorry'. This `Textorisation' has dictated the Prime Minister's policy directions on industrial relations, corporate philanthropy and mutual obligation. Sound public policy development has never been John Howard's forte, and in Mark Textor he has his perfect weathervane.The injection of over half a million dollars of federal taxpayers' money into Australasian Research Strategies represents a most impressive cash flow for a political party pollster in the months leading up to a federal election. This is more than enough to subsidise Mark Textor's meddling in state political matters. And, of course, the `Textorisation' of public policy has now led to the humiliating failure of the New South Wales Liberals. The central role of Textor and his polling in bringing down Mr Collins is now well known and must be a source of angst to someone who would rather call the shots but remain invisible.The New South Wales Liberal Party President, Michael Osborne, has spoken of how he provided Textor's polling to the then deputy leader, Ron Phillips, and the then leader of the upper house, John Hannaford, in order to convince them to drop their support for Mr Collins and instead switch to Kerry Chikarovski. The Liberals' New South Wales Director, Remo Nogarotto, last week committed a massive pre-election gaffe in pointing to Mr Collins's polling profile late in the year as so woeful Mr Collins would be the New South Wales Liberals' Billy McMahon. Mr Collins himself referred earlier this week to the insidious effect of Textor's product when he denounced `selective reading of polls by inexperienced campaigners'.But Textor was not just involved as a disinterested pollster. At the time the coup was being hatched and executed, Textor and fellow plotter Michael Yabsley were doing the rounds of Parliament House in Canberra actively spreading the polling results to federal Liberals. They were deliberately acting to ensure that none of Mr Collins's federal supporters would have any basis to launch a rescue mission, and in this they succeeded. No-one came to Mr Collins's aid from the federal sphere, despite past debts. And, in doing so, Textor was no `techno-dweeb'; he was a player pure and simple.The Victorian Premier knows exactly how much Textor has been an active player within the Liberal Party. At the Victorian division conference last week, Mr Kennett made an extraordinary and unprecedented attack on the New South Wales division, its president and its director, and directly on Textor himself. Mr Kennett's dislike of Textor and his methods is palpable. Let me quote Mr Kennett:The Party were obviously spooked by the polls, but the polls were being conducted in private by Nogarotto and the pollster who were obviously convinced that change was necessary anyway.He went on to say:They had a State Director Remo Nogarotto and a polling organisation that allowed themselves to become players in the market-place rather than recognising that both were employed to serve the organisation and to serve the parliamentary wing. Because they became players, they set in place activities and outcomes which have proved devastating.Textor's devastating influence and player status were not limited to the change of leadership. In the lead-up to the New South Wales campaign, and in the campaign proper, we now know that Textor had significant responsibility for the direction of the Liberals' entire advertising strategy—an amazing choice for a less than competent pollster with delusions of grandeur. And we understand this decision led to considerable angst and friction between the campaign headquarters team and between the team and Chikarovski's staff.This factor is the real reason for the Liberal Party's gross lack of focus during the campaign—their continual changes of advertising strategy; their blundering backdowns in having to withdraw five ads from air; their inability to properly argue for the policy centrepiece of their campaign, electricity privatisation; and the juvenile and pathetic retreat to the `Give Labor a kick in the pants' line in the final week, which is a slogan more worthy of the Northern Territory CLP than a real political party. Textor's gross incompetence has been on graphic display to the people of New South Wales in the past month, and the New South Wales Liberal Party has received its just desserts for giving him any serious responsibility for the direction of the campaign.And there have been more signs of Textor's lack of ability, even in the strict field of polling. In a story in the Financial Review yesterday, Stuart Washington and Mark Skulley reported:The NSW Liberals were unaware of their impending electoral disaster until the last days of the campaign, it emerged yesterday. One person close to the Liberal campaign said internal polling was showing that the party was within striking distance eight days out from the poll.Textor's internal polling was clearly worse than useless to the campaign. The Liberals headed blindly into the worst primary vote in their history, sticking to their campaign described by Peter Collins as `the most incompetent in living memory'.There are more recriminations yet to be aired in the New South Wales Liberal Party, more barbs to be aimed at the Prime Minister's role, and more dirty linen to be aired about the incompetence, amorality and treachery of many of the players, including Textor. Yet I am continually amazed by the resilience of Textor's mates in attempting to maintain his public funding lifeline. Another example in recent days has been Textor's push-polling accomplice, Andrew Robb, blithely announcing that Textor will be the pollster of choice for the republican movement and the yes campaign in the referendum next year. I understand this has come as a bit of a surprise to the leadership of the republican movement and the public servants in the department of PM&C who are currently drawing up the job description for the pollster. The tender process for the $7.5 million campaign has not even been commenced.We say it is inappropriate for either Labor or Liberal pollsters to be involved in the yes or no cases for the republican referendum. Prime Minister Howard has already gone too far down the path of politicisation and improper use of public moneys with this pollster, Mark Textor. He and the Liberal Party stand condemned for their association with this incompetent, amoral and utterly unethical loser. (Time expired)359413:15:003594Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise today to respond to an outrageous claim by the Prime Minister over the weekend. In a speech to the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party on Saturday, Mr Howard said: I defy anyone to name a government in Australian political history that actually took a detailed reform plan to the Australian economy in a fundamental area such as taxation, to the Australian people, laid it all out in detail and said vote for us or against us, on the basis of this plan.Leaving to one side the fact that the majority of Australians did not actually vote for the coalition—they voted against them—this false claim forms one more link in a mantra from the Prime Minister and his Treasurer which is demonstrably untrue. Was the taxation reform plan laid out in detail before the election? Absolutely not. No, no, a thousand times no. Was the Senate justified in pursuing a comprehensive inquiry into the tax package? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.I want to look today at the changes which the government has made to its own tax package, which is fast becoming a moveable feast, which belie the Prime Minister's claim that all the detail was taken to the people during the election.There was no legislation released before polling day at all, just the ANTS outline. It was an outline which then formed the core pitch of a $17 million misleading taxpayer contribution to the Liberal Party's re-election campaign, highlighting tables showing how much better off people were supposed to be—tables which have since been debunked by six university professors and the Bureau of Statistics, appearing before the Senate inquiry, who all agree that Treasury used the wrong figures.Putting that aside, what has happened since the election? Sixteen bills were introduced into the parliament in December last year with a demand that this chamber pass them forthwith, yet even the government acknowledge that they had made changes between the ANTS outline and the legislation, in the areas of charities and cars.They also began the mantra that these bills were the true representation of what the people voted for, anyway, and therefore they should not be changed by the parliament. A 17th bill was snuck in shortly after, to form a package of 17 bills. Then last week, a further 12 new bills were added to the package, representing significant changes to Peter's perfect package in a number of areas. The wine industry is one of those areas which was most surprised by what was contained in them.Today, a further two bills are to be introduced into the House of Representatives. So it has ballooned out from 16 to 31 bills—and we are still counting. This week the Senate, in our usual spirit of cooperation, agreed to debate two of the original 16 bills with early start-up dates, ahead of the 19 April report by the Senate references committee, which was the original agreement. We not only debated them; we passed them. However, these bills passed with 15 amendments which were sponsored by the government—again, representing significant changes.Did the government take the tax package to the election `laid all out in detail' as John Howard claims? No, of course not. Not even the original package of bills had it `laid all out in detail'. And the evidence which bells the cat on this one is not Democrat sponsored. It is provided by the actions of the government itself.They have so far added 13 bills to the original package of 16 which was rammed through a compliant House of Representatives without any scrutiny by the executive. They have foreshadowed a further two bills to be introduced today, which signals the start of what will no doubt be a deluge of government changes to their own package.It is also important to stress that, within just the first two of the original bills passed by the Senate, the government itself sponsored 15 amendments. If we look at the bills that we are dealing with, we are probably looking at at least 232 amendments by the government—and that is before any non-government amendments are discussed, or any more bills are introduced.Yet this government has the cheek to say that the package was set out in all its detail before the election. Clearly, the ANTS outline was flawed and their original package of bills was poorly drafted. Yet the Prime Minister had the gall to say on the weekend that he took this package in all its detail to the last election. He went on to say, in the same speech:In the weeks ahead the Australian Senate will have a decision to make in relation to that plan. And I want to say to you with all of the conviction that I can muster, that the government has absolutely no intention of retreating from the responsibility to implement that plan that was given to us by the Australian people in October last year.As I have already shown, in the massive changes undertaken by the government, they have already retreated on the ANTS outline. It is passing strange that the government should believe that they have a licence to make changes to their tax package but no other parliamentarian does. This is absurd. It only makes sense if you truly believe, as I am sure many in the ministry believe, that the executive should be left alone and not subjected to any parliamentary scrutiny at all, that they should simply run the country. I am very happy to be on the side of the parliament.I said in a speech earlier this year that it was sometimes uncomfortable to stand between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and absolute power, by dint of our position in this chamber. There are also days when it suits me very well. Last week was one of them. A cooperative Senate voted through one of the original tax bills with 15 government amendments. More importantly, it also contained a single non-government amendment, accepted by the government. It is, I believe, the first of many amendments to come.359513:21:003595Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Today, a number of students in different states and territories around the nation are protesting against the federal government. They take this action not, as we have seen in previous months and years, to protest against yet another attack by the government on university funding, a HECS increase or cuts to student assistance, but to defend their very right to organise and to criticise those types of education funding cuts. They do that because the government has signalled an intention to extinguish vital campus services and facilities provided by student unions and student organisations.The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, has made it very clear that he is prepared to blackmail, to threaten, the very funding base of universities generally in an attempt to carry out his planned implementation of so-called voluntary student unionism. I note that some conservative members of this place have even put stickers in their Senate office windows saying `VSU—it's about students, not student unions'. In fact, this debate is not about student welfare; it is about political revenge. It is about silencing dissent; it is about silencing your political opponents.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—It's about freedom of choice.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—The National Union of Students, the Council of Postgraduate Students Associations and dozens of student organisations around this country have been critical of this government's funding cuts to universities generally. And rightly so; there is a lot to be critical of.It is a sad day when the education minister decides to shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message. But that is quite typical of this government. You have only to look at other organisations that have had funding cuts or been defunded entirely. I refer, for example, to the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, which clearly has been a strong advocate of youth issues and has provided policy advice and research to government, yet it has been defunded—because of the times, we presume, when it may have been critical, and even constructively critical, of government policy making.The government cloaks its campaign to silence the student voice in the rhetoric of freedom of choice. I note that an honourable senator interjected earlier about the idea of freedom of association, and I will get on to that. The government has also suggested that somehow the student amenities fees—the fees that are collected and go to student organisations—are somehow a disincentive to study. It is a bit ironic when we see that this government has introduced and hiked up student fees and charges to the highest level in our history for public education in this country—even higher than in the pre-Whitlam days. So this government is quite hypocritical in that claim that it is concerned about fee increases, charges and imposts on students.The second point that this government makes is that universal membership of student organisations contravenes the principle of freedom of association. Since the late 1970s, pro-VSU campaigners have relied, to cover their ideological motivations, on the assertion that universal membership is a form of compulsion. But those who choose to mischievously use this argument of freedom of association should be aware that, on 30 October 1989, the Supreme Court of South Australia, in my home state, held that universal membership of a student organisation was not in breach of any human right to freedom of association.Universal membership is based on the recognition that all students do have some core common interests as students and that student organisations have always considered all students as their members, as entitled to vote, that they are elected and that they are involved. So they are democratically involved in that process. Universal membership means universality, not compulsion.When students enrol in a university, they are enrolling in a community—the university community. Everyone understands that participants in any community have rights and responsibilities. Within the university, the rights of students are created, defended and, indeed, extended by the student body. I refer, for example, to appeal procedures that have been won by student organisations, access to resources and participation in the total governance of the university.Student control of student affairs has always ensured the extension and protection of students' rights. As in any other community, students have rights and responsibilities. One of these responsibilities—and I think a right— is membership of a student organisation. This responsibility is enshrined in university statutes and is recognised as fundamental to the functioning of the student community. Student organisations, in turn, have their responsibilities to their members which they must meet. They must be democratic; they must be financially accountable; and so on.If a student were forced to be a member of, say, the Liberal Club or the Labor Club on campus, it would be a contravention of freedom of association. However, democratic student organisations are different in that they have a role in securing the rights, freedoms and conditions of study favourable to students.In fact, in article 29 of the United Nations declaration—and I note that this particular clause is never quoted by pro-VSU campaigners—this point is recognised. It is one of the same UN declarations to which they often refer, but not this one in particular. Article 29 reads:(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his [sic] personality is possible.(2) In the exercise of his [sic] rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.Also never quoted by pro-VSU campaigners, who may or may not be members of the current party in government responsible for making education less accessible, is article 26, which reads:(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.The Democrats support the opportunity for campus life to flourish and for students to get the most from their universities. That is why we have opposed funding cuts, fee increases and attacks on student organisations. We believe that student organisations are the lifeblood of campuses. They ensure that students can develop as people, not just as pupils. They do this by enabling them to participate in a whole range of areas—campus media, activities, sports, theatre, religious groups, politics, et cetera. They do this by the provision of a university community. Like a community, like ratepayers, like councils, they do this by levying a charge which is analogous to the payment of a resident's council rates.Local councils are also political, and many have been critical of policies that emanate from state and federal governments, such as the lack of underground cabling, aircraft noise, et cetera. Local councils and shires deal with much more than the proverbial `roads, rates and rubbish'. Indeed, I would add the word `representation' to that old phrase.Like student organisations, many councils run cultural and recreational activities. Like student organisations, they provide political representation and leadership—and yes, sometimes on controversial issues. That is an integral part of the role of student organisations as well as councils.We will defy and oppose any attempt by the government to interfere with the workings of these democratically organised student unions and student organisations. We defend the right of students to be critical of government policies and to have their freedom to organise, to educate, to be critical. We certainly oppose any attempt to emasculate not only their rights and responsibilities but also those vital services which we believe are the lifeblood of campus life. As I said, they extend from subsidised catering, child care and meeting rooms right through to sporting and recreational facilities.359713:30:003597Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—Today I want to make the fourth of a series of speeches I have made on MPIs relating to drugs in this country. The first one related to a drug crisis meeting that I established in the city of Newcastle some six weeks ago and the enormous response that got from the community, with over 500 people attending. The second related to the way in which New South Wales—and particularly Sydney—has become the drug capital of Australia under the Carr government. Last week I spoke about the hope being provided by the Swedish experience over the last 20 years and the effect of their approach on drugs and the way in which they have overcome, to a large extent, drugs in their society. What I want to look at today is what has occurred in this country so far and the way in which the federal government has increasingly moved into this field.Drugs as a problem in our society is overwhelmingly a state issue. They have the police forces. They have the treatment systems. They should be preventing drug abuse and they should be treating people who are unfortunately addicted to drugs. However, because of the failure of the states over recent years, increasingly the federal government has had to intervene and provide additional resources and programs to assist with this major social problem that our country faces.What I want to focus on today is the experience in recent times, since the Prime Minister announced $290 million for his Tough on Drugs strategy. We are attacking this problem at the supply level, while developing national education programs and encouraging state based treatment programs to affect the demand for illicit drugs. This is not just an academic pursuit; it is a very real social problem. This government is determined to address it. The plan is the largest single initiative ever undertaken in Australia in response to the drug problem. The Tough on Drugs initiative was established in response to the findings of the Commonwealth task force which the Prime Minister established on 25 August 1997. The purpose of the task force was to collate and assess the range of Commonwealth activities relating to illicit drugs. The first instalment was announced towards the end of 1997. It aimed at attacking drugs on both the demand and supply levels.Supply measures included a three-year $15 million plan to employ an extra 54 Australian Federal Police investigating officers, organised into three mobile strike teams, to proactively investigate and target operating drug syndicates in Australia. The number of strike teams will soon be increased to 10 Australia wide, thanks to the injection of another $24 million by the government. The amount of $6.7 million over three years has been allocated to improving coastal surveillance and detection of drugs coming into the country and enabling increased night surveillance, helicopter flying hours and marine surveillance. A national health signature program will be provided with $3.9 million over three years. This program will identify trafficking patterns for heroin, improve research into drug crime links, and increase funding for informant handling and witness protection.The amount of $7.3 million is to be spent over three years to improve information technology capabilities and communications. This will provide for a secure, high volume IT network for the flow of intelligence and operational information between the relevant Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. The Commonwealth government is to spend $7.5 million over three years on additional cargo examination capacity, supported by a new electronic cargo profiling system.The amount of $43.7 million was allocated in last year's budget to encourage reduction in demand for drugs and harm minimisation. Over four years, the federal government has committed $50 million to establish and enhance non-government treatment facilities. Over three years, $4.9 million has been allocated for community grants programs for local drug prevention and education projects. The federal government has also established a $17.6 million, comprehensive, community-wide education and information program. Extensive financial support has been provided for a range of activities aimed at identifying, promoting and disseminating the best practice for the treatment of illicit drug dependence. The Australian National Council on Drugs has also been set up to nationally orchestrate various efforts by treatment centres—state, federal and other members of the social coalition. A Schools Drug Strategy, at the cost of $7.4 million, has been established with the goal of zero tolerance of drugs in schools.There has been much made of the Prime Minister's Tough on Drugs strategy. I remind people of what he said about Tough on Drugs. He said that we are tough on drugs in relation to schools—we have no tolerance for drugs in schools—and we have a tough on drugs approach to people who promote the sale of drugs. I think the whole of society, except the drug pushers, would agree with that. To assist in this program, $30 million was also allocated last year to 68 community agencies for treatment and 24 local communities for initiatives such as training and resource centres.The Prime Minister's announcement of another instalment of the federal government's scheme was made on 18 March this year. The announcement included an extra $20 million in grants for community organisations to provide treatment, rehabilitation and support for those who are affected by drugs. This takes our commitment to well-equipped, well-researched, cutting-edge treatment facilities to $60 million under the Tough on Drugs strategy. The government wants to see all those who have a drug problem, or who are placed at risk, have access to treatment and support without a waiting list.At present in Sweden 100 per cent of all addicts have immediate access to treatment facilities. This is the federal government's goal. An unfortunate comparison can be made with the state of New South Wales where, in terms of things such as detox units, they have a disgraceful record. I mentioned in an earlier speech the case of the Central Coast, which has no detox facilities for 250,000 people. That is an absolute disgrace. As I mentioned earlier, with the Carr government we have also seen needle exchange programs start and stop, shooting galleries being allowed—under cover—to go ahead and then stop, and methadone clinics set up and then closed down. This government is in total confusion, and—as the Premier has admitted—they really have failed in their drugs policy. As the New South Wales Police Commissioner said, they have lost the war on drugs. The war on drugs did not even start.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—They do not take advice from someone who got 25 per cent.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I know it is embarrassing, Senator Evans, that the government has done so poorly on their drug strategy. The failure of the Carr government has meant that the federal government has had to step in to bolster its funds for treatment centres and community organisations, which had been previously hampered by the Carr government's failures.Since last August, nearly 150 organisations across Australia have received funding to conduct a range of local treatment and support programs to assist people in their communities. Another 50 agencies will receive additional funding. Programs funded at present include a wide range of treatment services from early intervention programs and outreach support through to detoxification and residential treatment programs for particular client groups.While we are providing funds and encouragement through the states for alternative treatments such as LAAM, buprenorphine and naltrexone, the federal government is determined to stand against risky heroin trials. As a matter of fact, the technology is passing this by. People should realise that there are a whole range of alternative, better treatments available that can bring people off drugs very quickly. What we do not need is heroin trials to keep people on this drug. What parents tell me and tell many of my colleagues is that they do not want their kids maintained on heroin. What they want is for them to be off it. They want their life back. They want their children to lead normal lives. Fortunately, at this stage the evidence is there, the programs are there and the trials are there on a whole range of alternatives to bring about a new phase in this war on drugs—getting people off more quickly.Other countries have trials on heroin. We do not have to have them. We can watch what happens overseas and evaluate it. What is happening does not seem very promising at this point. There are quite a number of other alternatives which we should be trialling, and indeed in a number of states this work has already started. A new alternative has been tried in Victoria and South Australia. LAAM, or levo-alpha-acetylmethadol, is a synthetic opioid analgesic which is something like morphine. It has no narcotic effect—meaning there is little chance of addiction—and no potential for a black market. LAAM has had astonishing success in trials in the United States. Australian trials are currently taking place in Victoria and South Australia. The federal government is glad to assist with these trials because they are pointing towards one of the possible solutions to this problem.Buprenorphine is another alternative being trialled in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT. This has very few side effects, is safe at high doses and enables alternate day administration. Previous trials elsewhere have shown there is only a low level of physical dependence and a relatively mild withdrawal syndrome. It is currently available for prescription in 35 countries.There has been much publicity surrounding the so-called wonder drug naltrexone. It displaces opioids from their sites and consequently blocks their effects. Trials elsewhere have shown that there are some drawbacks and therefore this is why we are trialling a whole range of drugs and approaches to overcome our heroin problem in this country. The Howard government will look increasingly at the possibility of improving funding for treatment programs once the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre publishes its national evaluation report. We want the best strategy possible in place. That is why the federal government has stepped in to fund these types of programs. Two clinical rapid detox trials, for example, are under way in New South Wales—one at Westmead, with 50 patients, and the other at Sydney Hospital involving 31 patients. Preliminary data from Sydney Hospital is encouraging.The other thing that we are really very keen on, in terms of our comprehensive approach to the drug problem, is working through community agencies. This is not a problem that can be totally solved by government. Funding will go to 50 voluntary and community agencies to run community based services. These organisations will provide treatment and support services. They have done a terrific job and we are quite keen to improve their funding. The government realises that we need these sorts of partnerships to help overcome the terrible drug problem developing in this country with our young people. An example of some of the success is the Youth Off the Streets program which we have funded with $750,000. It is a community organisation in the centre of Sydney at one of the drug hot spots. Thanks to that funding we are able to offer intensive two- to four-week residential services to young adults who have a history of drug abuse.Education is, of course, the other final key aspect of this comprehensive set of programs. The second instalment of Tough on Drugs builds on our initiatives here. I have mentioned a zero tolerance approach in schools. This is absolutely vital because the average age of drug addicted people has now dropped to 27 and continues to drop. It is the young people with whom we have a real problem. This is where education is absolutely vital. Awareness of the critical risks of drug taking at an early and impressionable age is seen by this government as vital. We are setting up measures which will make the streets and the schools of Australia safer for our young people.360013:44:003600Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I rise in today's matter of public importance discussion to add my voice to those of people with disabilities, their families and carers about the necessity to tackle the enormous unmet need for services for people with disabilities in this country. This is one of the great social problems confronting Australia and it is imperative that we begin to tackle the needs of people with disabilities in a coordinated, structured and strategic way immediately.The needs of the community of people with disabilities are now well documented. Unfortunately I do not think those needs are well understood, nor have they been taken seriously enough in a political context. The services that people with disabilities require must be part of the political agenda, must be part of the community's agenda and must be part of all our thinking, because it is important that we as a community commit ourselves to meeting the needs of these people.The consequences of the needs of people with disabilities going unmet are largely unseen by the wider community because the people with disabilities and their carers soldier on, making do in very difficult circumstances. They continue to suffer, often in silence, trying to eke out the best lives they can. But their needs are real and very pressing, and we really must do something as a community to help tackle these needs.The breadth of the needs of people with disabilities has been well recorded in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's report. It says that 13,400 people aged between five and 64 have unmet needs for assistance with self-care, mobility and verbal communication. Another 38,000 require employment services. There are 12,000 people aged 18 to 64 who are not currently receiving day programs under the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. An estimated 7,700 people with a severe or profound handicap have principal caregivers who are over 65 years of age, not to mention those with mild disabilities. We have a huge social problem in our community that has now, as I said, been well documented.But it is the personal stress of those involved that most needs to be understood. I am sure all senators have been receiving correspondence from people with examples of the sorts of problems people experience in providing adequate care for people with disabilities, organising respite care and meeting the daily essential needs of these thousands of Australian citizens.It is encouraging to note that the state and federal ministers will be meeting on 9 April to discuss some of these issues. It is highly unfortunate that the meeting was not held earlier. The federal minister, Senator Newman, has been under pressure since the last election from the disability groups, and I think some of the state governments, to have a meeting. Unfortunately that meeting has not been scheduled until 9 April this year. The key point about that delay is that consideration of matters for this year's federal budget closed in February. So we have a situation where the disability ministers are not meeting to discuss how we might best tackle this enormous demand for services for people with disabilities until after the federal budget considerations have been decided.By 9 April it will be too late to have any impact on the shape of the 11 May budget. It will be too late for this year's budget to ensure that sufficient extra funds are provided from the Commonwealth to assist with meeting this great social need. People with disabilities and their support people can rightly be critical of the government for failing to meet with the state ministers earlier and for failing to seriously tackle this issue at an earlier time. I do hope that the minister does attend that meeting with a view to having a serious discussion about how, jointly with the state governments, the Commonwealth government can play its role in addressing this serious, unmet need.This Commonwealth government does not have a great record in the area of assisting people with disabilities, given that in its first budget around $138 million was cut out of the disability services area. We are still not back to scratch in terms of the contribution of the Commonwealth government. But I do not want to make a highly political contribution today. I want to lend my voice to those people in the community with disabilities, and the people who support and care for them, with regard to the necessity for government to tackle the very real needs that these people have and the services they require.It has been estimated that those needs could be met with a budget allocation of about $300 million extra. That may sound like a lot of money and of course it is, but it is a question of priorities. In terms of the Commonwealth government, $300 million is not a massive amount of money. We managed recently to spend $1.7 billion on propping up private health insurance in this country, paying people on high incomes a subsidy so that they could take out private health insurance. The government thought that was a priority; I say that we must make the needs of people with disabilities in this country a higher priority. The $300 million that they require to provide essential services so that they can live decent lives and so that their carers can get some respite is not too much to ask.This government is not helping with its goods and services tax proposal because people with disabilities will be among those who suffer most from this proposition. People with disabilities are huge consumers of services. Things that we sometimes purchase as discretionary services are absolutely essential for people with disabilities. They require taxis and have transportation needs at a much higher level than people without disabilities. They often require a whole range of services in the home, as well as personal care services, to just eke out an existence as close to normal as possible.A tax on services, as proposed by the government, will very adversely affect this group of people. The compensation measures for them are not specifically targeted, but are merely the average compensation measures determined by the government. So, at the same time as having this huge, unmet need, the new tax on services for people with disabilities will be a further barrier to their full participation in society and their access to the most basic of services.But my central theme today is the need to meet this huge demand for services for people with disabilities. It is most worrying that the minister's recent comments indicate that she believes this is really a state matter and that states will be getting an awful lot of extra money from GST revenue and, therefore, it is an issue that the states ought to address using those additional revenues if the GST is passed. That is an unacceptable approach. There is no doubt that there are state responsibilities in the area of disability services, but there is a need for a Commonwealth-state partnership to tackle this huge issue of the unmet needs of people with disabilities.The ministers meeting on 9 April represents a very real opportunity to map out a strategic, long-term approach to meeting those needs. I accept that not all of those needs can be met in the short term. Sure, extra money is needed, and extra money should be provided; but there is also a need for more facilities and other initiatives that require longer term planning and longer term investment. What should come out of the state and Commonwealth ministers meeting is that strategic plan—a commitment to a long-term strategy to tackle the needs of people with disabilities and to provide the funds on an ongoing basis to meet that demand.People with disabilities do not want just a few scraps from the table—$20 million or $30 million here or there for some pet project. They want a strategic plan to address these very real needs and to tackle the problems confronting people with disabilities in this country. It would be a very real shame if the meeting of state and federal ministers on 9 April failed to deliver that sort of strategic approach.360213:54:003602Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Today I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a project that is trying to boost the bilby population in Queensland. It is a chance for all of those who claim to be friends of the bush, wildlife and conservation to do something positive.The bilby is a small marsupial with grey and tan hair, and a distinctive black and white tail. It produces only one or two young at a time. Bilby populations are currently under threat. Their low birth rate is not the only factor that has contributed to the decline in bilby numbers. Over time, predators such as the red fox, feral cats and the dingo have threatened bilby populations. Competition for food between introduced and native species has led to a decrease in bilby numbers.Four-fifths of the area previously inhabited by the bilby in Queensland no longer hosts the species. Across Australia, sparse populations are found only in isolated desert areas in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. In Queensland, only 600 to 700 bilbies can be found in a 100,000 kilometre radius stretching from Birdsville to Boulia. Previously, this large expanse of Queensland was host to a healthy bilby population.In response to the declining population, a Queensland group, including Frank Manthey and others, has proposed establishing a bilby breeding program from a colony of 30 bilbies currently in Charleville. The proposal is to increase numbers by housing bilbies in an enclosure designed to keep out predators and to reduce competition from other species. By protecting the small bilby from large, more rapacious animals and ensuring it has adequate food, the proposed project would give a jump-start to the bilby population. Enclosures five kilometres by five kilometres with two-metre high fences and electric wires would provide a formidable deterrent to hungry predators.Once a healthy population of several hundred bilbies was reached, the animals would be gradually released through small openings in the fence into the immediate area. Hopefully they would then spread through their natural geographical habitat across Currawinya Park, near Hungerford, and even go further. The introduced predators would be subject to a control program before the bilbies were released. It is hoped that these larger populations would be able to fend off competitor species and would actively breed in their natural environment.The project is in need of financial assistance. Individuals who contribute $20 to the project will be recognised on a plaque on the bilby fence. This is a chance for all of the people with the green credentials to put their money where their mouth is. I will be inviting all senators, particularly the Democrats, to do something positive for the bilby population. I will look forward to seeing whether Senator Woodley has his cheque in the mail. I will certainly be sending mine. The appeal for funds, which was launched this week, will run until the end of the year or until enough donations are received. Larger donations from corporate organisations are graciously welcomed. The entire project is estimated to cost $250,000.While this project would be practically solving the decline in bilby numbers, it would also have a research component. Under a national recovery plan and a state rescue plan, coordinated research would be conducted into the biology and ecology of the species. Armed with scientific knowledge about the decrease in bilby populations, participants would be able to identify threats to the bilby population and devise new plans to stabilise the species. Stabilisation is vital.Currently the bilby is listed as vulnerable nationally and endangered in Queensland. With further losses, it is possible that the national listing will also be upgraded to endangered. This is a worthy project but public assistance is needed if Australia is to have a healthy bilby population despite what happens in the wild.While the Astrebla Downs National Park in the Channel Country has the most significant remaining population, previous unreliable rainfall has made the area unsuitable for the bilby project. Currawinya National Park has been chosen because it was formerly the heart of the Queensland bilby population. It is a large national park with permanent staff who can be dedicated to the task of saving this important marsupial. It is also an area with a diverse and reliable bilby food supply. Let us hope the park can once again play host to a robust bilby population.Donations of nearly $14,000 have already been received from ordinary Australians and some from larger corporations. As I said, I will be donating to the project myself. This is a chance to do something very positive for wildlife conservation. I will be looking to see how Senator Woodley responds to this, and Senator Brown too.Ministerial Arrangements360314:00:003603Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Vanstone is absent today. She is visiting Asia, Europe and America for consultations with ministerial counterparts and law enforcement and drug experts on operational aspects of her portfolio. During her absence, Senator Ellison will take questions relating to the Justice and Customs portfolio, the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Immigration and Cultural Affairs portfolio.Questions Without Notice360336033603Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Can the minister inform the Senate precisely what contribution the following government measures have made to Australia's disastrous second successive record monthly trade deficit: the government's $359 million budget cuts to our trade programs; the government's 30 per cent cut to the Austrade budget over the last three years compared with the previous three years; and the government's 25 per cent cut to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme?3604Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The trade figures reflect the fact that we have such a strong domestic economy with the background of basically a weak external situation. To some extent, therefore, our trade figures are not as good as we might like, because of the fact that we have done so well as a government and have put in place the conditions under which the Australian economy is booming in the way it is now. It was interesting last night to hear the deputy editor of the Economist referring to the miracle economy of Australia and saying how extraordinary it is with the background of the very weak circumstances existing in Asia at the moment.Of course, it is not a miracle at all; it has occurred through sound economic management, taking hard but difficult decisions that have enabled expenditure to be significantly cut, interest rates to be reduced to their lowest level in 30 years, inflation to be at a record low level, and jobs to be increased in this country. That is the circumstance that has led to a very powerful domestic economy with growth of over four per cent; and that is tending to suck in exports, not surprisingly, whilst at the same time our export markets are weak because of the weakness of our partner economies. That is particularly reflected in relation to figures for commodities at the moment. They are the facts of the matter.What is comforting is that, because of its strong domestic economy, Australia can withstand difficult external accounts much better than it was able to under Labor. I guess that is just another reason why this government should be applauded for taking those hard decisions, most of which were opposed by the Labor Party.3604Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Of course, the structural strength of the economy is due to the reforms made during the Labor government, and the problem with the current account deficit is that we are not exporting enough. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, won't you acknowledge that the government's ill-conceived and short-sighted cuts to these trade programs have at the very least contributed to making a difficult trade situation worse? Won't you acknowledge that fact? Can you guarantee that the government will rectify those cuts to our export incentive programs in the coming budget?3604Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will not concede that; but what I do say is that the answer for the future is to strengthen the domestic economy even further—and the way to do that is with further reform and, in particular, taxation reform. We have been able to reform our expenditure and industrial relations, but what we badly need is to complement that with taxation reform, to introduce an efficient, contemporary taxation system that encourages exports. And what system will encourage exports more than one which has a GST but has no GST on exports? If you are seriously interested in the external accounts, Senator Cook, you should support the government—Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Hill. Senator Cook, it is your question and your supplementary question, and you have been interjecting persistently throughout. There is an appropriate time to debate this matter and it is after question time.BH4Senator HILL—If the Labor Party were serious about external accounts, the first thing they would do would be to support the coalition government in passing tax reform. The opportunity is before the Senate at the moment. The test is in the hands of the Labor Party. Come on board and at last be relevant. This is a chance for Labor to be relevant—just one chance. (Time expired)36043604Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, the government's taxation reform package unveiled last year outlines many benefits for average Australian families, including massive income tax relief and increases in family assistance. Would the Assistant Treasurer outline the three major components of the family package in the tax reform proposal, and can he outline how this proposal will benefit average families in my home state of South Australia? Furthermore, could the Assistant Treasurer outline what threats there are to this family tax relief?3605Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator, for your question and for the genuine concern you show for Australian families and, in particular, families in South Australia. Senator Ferguson has always had a particular emphasis in his remarks on family policies, so in that sense the question does not surprise me. It is true that families will be big winners from the tax reform package. Today the legislation will be introduced into the parliament to build on the family tax initiative introduced by the government in 1997.Of the three major components of the family package, the first provides a large increase in assistance for most Australian families. Overall, the package is worth in the order of $2.5 billion. The government will firstly provide new family tax benefits, the equivalent of doubling the extra $1,000 tax free threshold for each dependent child under the FTI, thus providing a 70 per cent increase in assistance.The second measure provides for the equivalent of doubling the extra $2,500 tax free threshold for one-income families with a child aged under five. This is equivalent to not having to pay tax on the first $15,000 of income. Further, we are increasing the maximum assistance for child care for lower income families by $7.50 a week, or some seven per cent.Another component in our families package provides a substantial boost for assistance for low to middle income families, where there are tax poverty traps—I think that is well known as a problem with the current tax system—through increasing the level of income at which family allowance begins to be income tested from $24,350 to $28,200 a year and reducing the income test withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. Combined with the large personal income tax cuts, as promised by this government, this greatly increases the rewards available to low and middle income working families.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is conversation going on across the chamber which is in breach of the standing orders and disruptive.WW4Senator KEMP—The third component of the families package is a simplified administrative system of family assistance. The existing complex family assistance system, involving some 12 forms of assistance, will be simplified by reducing the number to just three.The question also asked me about the major threats to this very important package. Of course the major threat comes from the Labor Party's `oppose for the sake of opposing' attitude. We want to deliver major income tax cuts; we want to deliver a major family package; and, frankly, the Labor Party wants to scuttle it.I mentioned the other day in the Senate how Mr Neil O'Keefe, the member for Burke, had recently written an article in the Melbourne Age saying, `What you vote for is what you get.' We think that is fair enough. Today I would like to draw the Senate's attention to another comment by a Labor member of parliament. This is what a senator, a Labor frontbencher, said earlier this year—and I thought it made sense:If you don't like the government, what it's doing, you vote it out at the next election. But once you vote them in, you give them a chance to carry out that mandate.That Labor frontbencher was Senator Chris Schacht. (Time expired)36053605Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. In relation to the minister's recent press release which stated `credit in relation to any advance previously paid will be applied to the 1997-98 assessments as provided for by the legislation', I ask: how will people who do not have a superannuation surcharge tax assessment issued in 1997-98 recover advance instalments they have made in the previous year?3606Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Hogg for that question on the very popular measure that the government announced recently—the abolition of the advance payment. This was a measure which received very strong community support. In particular, we received very strong support from the industry—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were humiliated.WW4Senator KEMP—If that is the case, can we have more such occasions? In the superannuation area we received very strong support from all the major industry groups. I think that at the time—I may be wrong; if I am, the Labor senator can correct me—the Labor Party did not even bother to put out a press statement attacking it. There was no press statement, I believe, from the shadow minister. So I assume that this, again, was a measure which was widely welcomed by the Labor Party. It is an extremely important measure. It was supported by ASFA, IFSA and the Australian Institute of Actuaries. We are very pleased and comfortable with those changes. We have strongly welcomed the community support.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President, I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Kemp was asked whether people who do not have a surcharge tax assessment issued in 1997-98 recover advance instalments they have made in the previous year—I think those were the words that Senator Hogg used. I do think it would be reasonable in this circumstance, given that we have had a couple of minutes of waffle, as usual, from Senator Kemp, to draw his attention to the actual question that was asked and perhaps invite him to break his duck and try to answer the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think the minister is giving background preamble, but I am sure he is coming to the answer.WW4Senator KEMP—And, I might say, an extremely important background preamble, Madam President. In line with the government's announcement, assessments for the 1997-98 income year, to be issued around 15 May, will not include an advance instalment. Any payments of advance instalment already made will be credited, including against assessments to be issued from May. With regard to 1996-97 assessments, the majority of superannuation funds have complied with the law and paid their surcharge liability.3606Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Isn't it the case that someone whose 1997-98 income has fallen below the surcharge threshold will not receive an assessment for that year? Isn't it the case that those who received an assessment in 1996-97 but have since died will not be issued with an assessment in 1997-98? Isn't it also the case that women who have left the work force—for instance, to have a baby—will also not be issued with an assessment in 1997-98? How will they receive their advance instalment credit?3606Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, where there is a small sort of charge on the advance payment, as I said, if a credit is required, a credit will be given. Where an advance payment has been made and no surcharge is required to be paid the following year, quite clearly the money will be refunded.36063606Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. The government is committed to jobs growth, in particular for people living in rural and regional Australia. Will the minister inform the Senate of the positive impact that call centres are having in providing jobs growth in regional Australia, and what is the government doing to assist the regions in attracting new call centres? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals and what would be the impact should these be implemented?3606Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Call centres are a rapidly expanding industry. There are a number of international firms flocking to Australia to take advantage of a number of very important comparative advantages that we have. It is quite clear that we have not only a multilingual work force but we also have very skilled workers, we have very advanced telecommunications infrastructure and we have a unique time zone position. All of these factors come together to make Aus tralia a very attractive location for call centres. Regional communities in particular are an attractive location, as Senator Watson would appreciate, because companies looking to set up call centres are usually looking for locations where there is low staff turnover and low cost structures, where the quality of life is very attractive and where people tend to have a more customer friendly focus.In Tasmania in particular that has been the experience to date. That is why some 2,600 jobs have already been created in call centres in that state alone. It is very encouraging indeed that firms such as Ansett, Qantas, Westpac, Centrelink, the Taxation Office, Watts Communications and other telecommunications carriers are identifying Tasmania as a very important opportunity for them—something like $170 million worth of business for the Tasmanian economy. The number of call centres is growing at the rate of about 20 per cent a year throughout Australia. It is an industry worth close to $2½ billion, and that should continue.It certainly will continue while we are in government because we are very keen to encourage people to move into sunrise industries. People should be aware of the fact that the starting salary for a graduate in a call centre is approximately $32,000, with some managers earning in excess of $300,000. More than 50 per cent of call centre employees are tertiary graduates and more than half are under 30. It ought to be patently clear that this is one of the big employment opportunities of the future. So we ask ourselves: why is it that the Labor Party constantly denigrates this form of employment? The answer is: because there are not too many union members employed in call centres. The ACTU even had the gall to denigrate call centres on the Business program recently, calling them `sweat shops'.Here we have a perfect opportunity for an expanding industry in places like Tasmania which desperately need encouragement for this sort of activity, and you lot are bagging them. Is it any wonder that John Della Bosca has to come to Canberra to tell Kim Beazley that the voters are sick of Labor's negativity?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Mr Beazley, Senator.LD4Senator ALSTON—Mr Beazley, Madam President. Wake up to yourselves. Of course they are. They want you to get out there and barrack for middle Australia. They do not want you simply to be playing for those who have put you in this place so that you can have a nice, cosy little time and ignore the interests of mainstream Australia. How humiliating! How demeaning that a state secretary, some dishevelled genius, as Mr Carr calls him—he is probably half right—has to come to Canberra to tell the federal Leader of the Opposition where he has it horribly wrong. He says, `There are big lessons in New South Wales for you. One of the major lessons is: wake up and start listening to middle Australia.' Middle Australia want jobs for themselves and for their children. They want these employment opportunities. Stop bagging them and encourage them. (Time expired)36073607West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. I ask the minister: can he confirm that the Productivity Commission's report on nursing home subsidies released today rejects the government's coalescence proposal for nursing home funding? Does the minister now concede that the Productivity Commission is right and that the government's proposal would lead to a significant reduction in the quality of care for older Australians in a number of states? Will the minister finally rule out the introduction of this central plank of the government's aged care reforms?3607Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator West for the question. Yes, I am aware of the Productivity Commission's report, which we are quite happy to respond to. The Treasurer asked the independent Productivity Commission to investigate relative costs of residential aged care between states and the likely future distribution of government funding. The Productivity Commission delivered its final report to the Treasurer on 13 January this year. The report, as Senator West mentioned, was released yesterday, and the point that the government would like to make in relation to the Productivity Commission's report is that the government has already categorically ruled out any changes to resident fees and charges as a result of the report. It raises a number of issues that the government will consult on and make a decision about in coming months. So there are a number of issues.The report supports the government's objective of a funding structure based on a standard rate across Australia with supplements for higher cost rural and remote areas. Let us remember that the state-by-state funding structure now in place is Labor's system. The current system is a legacy of Labor's mismanagement. It is the system that gave Queensland providers the lowest subsidy of all states. The coalition has been left with the responsibility to fix it. The Labor Party entrenched a funding system that locked in out-of-date cost differences between the states. We, on the other hand, looked at the evidence and, accordingly, decided to move towards a national subsidy. The report vindicates this decision.The government is moving to uniform national subsidies by a mechanism called coalescence. The issue of coalescence is not about residents' fees but about how $3 billion in taxpayers' funding is distributed to 3,000 residential care facilities across Australia to care for 135,000 Australians in need of care. The government currently provides additional funding for the special needs of service providers in rural and remote areas. It will ensure the structures are designed for fair distribution of funding to provide the residential care that is needed by a small, but extremely important, minority of older Australians.Our focus is on individuals and their need for quality care. Providers are the means of delivering that care. Nursing homes are receiving substantially more income under the coalition reforms than they ever did under Labor. In 1997-98 the Howard government spent over $3.6 billion on aged and community care. The outlay in 1998-99 is budgeted to grow strongly by 4.2 per cent to $3.8 billion. In 1995-96 the Labor government, under Finance Minister Kim Beazley, spent only $2.4 billion on residential aged care alone. The outlay of the coalition government in 1998-99 is budgeted to be $2.9 billion.Not surprisingly, the report found that there was no evidence of a funding crisis in the industry. You will recall, Madam President, the bleating that went on before the last election. The report states:The substantial prices paid for bed licences do not sit comfortably with the view that there is a funding crisis in the sector. Similarly, the Commission notes that many homes, private for-profit and not-for-profit alike, are producing operating surpluses under current subsidy levels, even in the lowest subsidy state of Queensland.3608West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has failed to answer what the government's proposals are in relation to coalescence. Will the government pursue this central plank of their act to introduce coalescence or does the minister agree that the Productivity Commission's report confirmed that coalescence—like accommodation bonds—was another ill-conceived element of the government's aged care package?3608Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—For the benefit of senators, coalescence is the move towards a uniform or standard funding regime for subsidies paid by the government to nursing home owners.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—We know what it is.VW4Senator HERRON—They do not want to hear it, they are not interested—not only do they have no knowledge of it whatsoever but also they are not interested. They do not care about older Australians. I think they could at least listen to the report.Prior to the implementation of the Aged Care Act 1997, recurrent subsidies for hostels and the infrastructure component of funding for nursing homes were paid on the basis of uniform national rates, while subsidies for nursing and personal care in nursing homes were paid on state specific rates. The government decided on coalescence because it brings funding into line with relative costs and will make the aged care funding system simpler, more effective and better in the longer term. There will be no fee increases. (Time expired)36093609Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the proposal by the British government through BNFL and Pangea to build an international nuclear dump in Australia and I ask: is it correct that the British Prime Minister's chief numbers man, Mr Philip Gould, met with Pangea and BNFL and has a specific brief to manage the nuclear dump through any Australian resistance? If this is the case, what is the minister going to do about it? Will the minister write to Tony Blair and tell him unequivocally that not now, not ever, will any Australian government allow the importation of another country's nuclear waste?3609Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This could be a dorothy dixer because it gives me the opportunity to state again that this government does not have a policy of accepting the nuclear waste of other countries. It is not a business that we intend to get into. We have said on many occasions that it is not in our interest. What the role of Mr Blair's chief numbers man is in relation to the matter is of little interest to me.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I asked the minister a specific question and I wonder if you could direct him to answer that question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—I said no. I also said I was not particularly interested in the attitude or views of Mr Blair's chief numbers man in relation to the matter.3609Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister did not answer my question, which was whether or not the government would write to Tony Blair. I further ask: is the minister aware that the Australian High Commission in London asked for information on the Pangea project from the British government? Did the commissioner do this under instructions from the minister? What was the nature of the request for information? Will the minister give an undertaking to table in the Senate all of the information received by the government and all departments and agencies on the Pangea proposal?3609Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have no intention of writing to Mr Blair regarding the matter. I do not know of the communications to which the honourable senator is referring. I do not see any reason to table any documents.36093609Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the practice of nursing homes downgrading their nursing staff positions to aged care workers? Does the minister agree that this is nothing more than a cost cutting measure which will both reduce conditions of employment for nurses and undermine the standards of care in nursing homes? Will the minister undertake to investigate the prevalence of this practice and take steps to prevent it?3609Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Gibbs for the question. The practices in the nursing homes at present have evolved over many years. There are standards that have developed under the previous government and under the Howard-Fischer government. They have been reviewed from time to time by the industry itself and that process is a continuous one. The decision is frequently made by particular nursing homes, both for-profit and not-for-profit, in relation to their own facilities. It is dependent on the decision of the proprietors, but under the supervision of the government at the time. If Senator Gibbs has a specific matter that she wishes to refer to, I would be happy to refer it to the minister and have it examined.3609Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister. I do have a specific matter in mind, but it is my information that this is happening throughout Australia, in particular since the Aged Care Bill came about. I ask you again: will you undertake to ask the Minister for Aged Care to investigate the prevalence of this practice and take steps to prevent it?3609Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I do not believe that it is a common practice throughout Australia. Senator Gibbs has made this out.AW5CARRSenator Carr—How would you know?VW4Senator HERRON—I would ask how Senator Carr knows. It will not be long before he is in a nursing home at the rate he is going, given the factional problems in Victoria.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is becoming a habit of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to sling off at people.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ha, ha!5K4Senator FAULKNER—And now he is slinging off at people in nursing homes. This might be amusing to the Liberal Party, but I am sure there are a lot of people listening who would not approve of that sort of approach from the minister who represents the portfolio of Aged Care in this chamber. I would ask you to rule on the point of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I raise a separate point of order, and it is this: if Senator Faulkner is to be allowed to get up and behave in the way that he just has, which deserves, I would have thought, the century's award for sanctimoniousness, he should be prepared to undertake to behave in the manner that he expects others to behave. Madam President, all you ever get is sledging across the chamber, he turns his back on you whenever you speak to him, he treats you with total contempt and ignores your rulings. You should not entertain any more submissions from him unless he is prepared to undertake to set a better example.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. We will proceed with question time. All senators are aware of the provisions of standing order 203 and I should not have to remind them of it.VW4Senator HERRON—I dispute the fact that this is across Australia. The Aged Care Act requires that providers maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of residents are met.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why do you hate old people? 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you have been interjecting persistently throughout question time. I remind you of the provisions of standing order 203.VW4Senator HERRON—The act also sets out accreditation procedures, which must be followed and which require providers to have in place a skills mix appropriate to the care needs of the residents and arrangements for the ongoing development of staff skills. The act requires it, we fulfil the act and I do not believe the proposition that Senator Gibbs has put forward. But, as I say, if she has a specific incident that she is referring to, I would be happy to follow it up.36103610Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the murderous events in Kosovo under the Milosevic regime. Minister, what direct response has the Australian government made to the call by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to ensure that NATO does not hit civilians and in particular refugee camps in Serbia? Has a direct approach been made to NATO about that? Given the chilling rumours that people are being herded into sports stadia in Pristina and other almost unthinkable barbarities flowing from such events occurring in Kosovo, what is the government's view about the use of land operations in Kosovo by NATO?3610Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is unnecessary for this government to advise NATO that it should take care to avoid hitting civilian targets. Obviously NATO is taking every care possible to that end.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They aren't doing a good job, are they?BH4Senator HILL—I think the NATO parties are doing an excellent job in all the circumstances, Senator Carr. NATO is fighting oppression; it is fighting an appalling situation brought about by President Milosevic and his regime. We should be giving those who are putting their lives at risk to save others credit rather than attacking them. I am disappointed to hear your attitude to this matter. I hope it does not reflect that of the Australian Labor Party as a whole.The circumstances are, as I said, appalling. The estimates a couple of days ago were that there were half a million displaced ethnic Albanians—many tens of thousands per day, unfortunately—as a result of the actions of President Milosevic and his regime, for which he must accept total responsibility. It need not go on. There is no need for it to go on. All that is necessary is for President Milosevic to recognise that he should adhere to internationally accepted human rights standards in relation to all of the people of Yugoslavia, withdraw his forces from Kosovo and cease the barbaric acts that he is inflicting upon ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and the matters will come to an end and there will not be a continuation of the human suffering that we are experiencing.The position of the Australian government has been to support the action that has been taken by NATO parties. Where we can be of assistance in relation to the humanitarian crisis we will do so, but we have no direct part in the military action that is taking place and we do not intend to tell NATO how they should do their business.3611Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, and I must record my disagreement. I think the federal government does have a role in levying humanitarian pressure on both sides. I ask the minister: what direct aid is the Australian government considering giving to the countries surrounding Kosovo: Albania, Macedonia and in particular Montenegro, which is now faced with an awesome humanitarian crisis from the flow of refugees? Is the Australian government considering—and has it brought to the front burner—an Australian plan to take part in what is going to be an international effort if this is not going to turn into a human tragedy outside Kosovo as well as inside Kosovo?3611Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I did not say that there was not a role that we could play in relation to the humanitarian aspects of this conflict. In fact, as Mr Downer has said, we are exploring as a matter of urgency ways in which we can assist those who are suffering. We are doing it through intergovernmental contact and also through existing aid agencies. The highest priorities are of course the medical and shelter needs of refugees, and we are looking at ways in which we can offer humanitarian assistance in that regard. That is a role that we can play, although obviously it is relatively modest as we are so far away. The other thing I said which seemed to be misinterpreted by Senator Brown is that we do not have a direct role in the military action that is taking place in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia.Distinguished Visitors361110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of the distinguished former Victorian senator, Mr John Button. I welcome you to the Senate. We are very pleased to see you.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice361136113611Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I refer to the minister's answer yesterday to a question about the impact of the GST on indigenous communities, in which he said:While some food items might increase, many in fact will be cheaper because we will abolish Labor's hidden tax—the wholesale sales tax—For the benefit of indigenous communities, could the minister name the many foods which will be cheaper?3611Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—All those that are taxed now.3L6Senator CONROY—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Isn't it a fact that the only food items that attract a WST are fruit and vegetable juices?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Wrong!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators should appreciate that Senator Herron needs to hear the question.3L6Senator CONROY—Isn't it also a fact that these items attract only a 12 per cent sales tax applied to the wholesale price, as opposed to the government's GST, which will see a 10 per cent tax applied to the retail price, thus making these items more expensive under the GST than they would be under the existing tax system?VW4Senator HERRON—The supplementary question is based on totally false premises, and I would ask Senator Conroy: when have you been to an Aboriginal community? I will guarantee you that there is no record of Senator Conroy ever having been to an Aboriginal community, either remote, rural or anywhere, and I reject the statements made in his supplementary question.36123612Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is for the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. The coalition went to the last election with a detailed policy of tax reform to replace the ramshackle and ambiguous system we have had since the 1930s. I ask the minister: what are the benefits for the resources and manufacturing industries of this overdue and very much needed tax reform?3612Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—As Senator Lightfoot knows only too well, mining and manufacturing are vital to Australia's economic wellbeing. Together they generate around half our export income, which Senator Cook seems to be concerned about, and they employ over a million Australians. It is a national imperative that we ensure that these industries can compete successfully internationally and that we remove all impediments to that competitiveness.One of the biggest impediments these industries face is our current tax system. This is of course what our irrelevant opposition wants us to keep. The current wholesale sales tax is one of the most pernicious taxes on manufacturing imaginable. A well-known Australian, in advocating that we do replace the wholesale sales tax with a GST, said:. . . it will allow a more rational indirect tax system than the current anomaly-ridden wholesale sales tax, which has multiple rates, numerous exemptions, and fails to tax the services sector.That of course was none other than the latest star of 60 Minutes , Paul Keating, in 1985. There are any number of examples of what Paul Keating was talking about.We had the discussion of food. We had the problem with yoghurt and whether or not it should be taxed under this system, and that had to go to the Federal Court. Ice-cream is taxed—that is a food and it is taxed—but frozen yoghurt is exempt. So we had the problem of what to do about a form of yoghurt that is delivered to retailers frozen but sold as soft-serve. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal said it was not yoghurt and therefore it was not exempt. It had to go to the Federal Court, who said the AAT were wrong.Something as simple as a chair is taxed at two different rates—12 per cent if it is for household purposes and 22 per cent if it is for office purposes, and they have enormous difficulty working out which is which.The wholesale sales tax system, which Labor wants us to keep, taxes household essentials like washing machines and fridges but, if you want to go to the opera, that is tax free. Toothpaste is taxed, but the brush that you put it on, under Labor's tax system, is not. This is an insane tax system for a modern economy.What did Labor do in the lead-up to the last election? What was their plan? How did they approach what Paul Keating had said 14 years ago were the problems with the current tax system? After 2½ years of labouring away about what to do with the current tax system, what did they come up with? A grand plan to take the WST off orange juice and stick it on caviar and Lear jets. That was the product of 2½ years of intensive policy work to reform our tax system. What a joke! We recognised that we had to fix the tax system. We went to the people asking for a mandate, which they gave us, to remove your wholesale sales tax. Our plan gets rid of that plus nine other taxes which burden Australian industry.We are going to take 4.4 per cent off the cost of mining in this country. Chris Murphy, in a report to the Senate inquiry into this issue, said that mining production would be boosted by seven per cent—employment in mining will rise by 7,000 people. Even dear Senator Cook recognises the advantages to mining. He said to the mining industry in the Senate inquiry:There is a quantifiable—subject to advice of course—advantage to your industry, I suspect, from the ANTS package.Senator Cook recognises that this package will be good for the mining industry—one of the most important industries in his state—but he is going to vote against it. As Senator Alston has said, why don't you take advice from the two best professionals you have ever had—Bob Hogg and John Della Bosca—get out of the mud, get out of the trap you are in and pass the package?36133613Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Will the minister join with civic leaders in Victoria in condemning Mr Sam Newman's tasteless, humourless and offensive parody of an Aboriginal footballer which was based on crude racial stereotypes? Or does he regard this as merely another Haase type joke?3613Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Schacht for the question. I note that the AFL have already taken action in relation to Mr Newman's parody of Nicky Winmar on The Footy Show . This includes the counselling of players on issues of racism, which counselling I and the government totally support—we are totally against racism of any kind. But, more specifically, the parties involved have been brought together and I understand a resolution has been reached—that was on the media today—and the steps undertaken by the AFL have been most appropriate. In light of this, I do not believe that anything further can be achieved other than what has already been achieved by the AFL and by the people concerned.3613Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you say that you congratulate the AFL for the work it has done—and so do we—in taking initiatives to remove racism from within their sport, which is certainly admirable, but I note in your answer that you did not say you disagreed with what Mr Newman said, but that you agreed with the process of the AFL. I ask you, Minister: do you agree with Mr Newman's tasteless, humourless and offensive parody? 3613Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I think the issue is resolved. I can disagree or agree, as the case may be, but the issue has been resolved. Senator Schacht trying to keep the issue going achieves nothing; it stirs up racism. I do not really believe there is any virtue in keeping the issue going, because if you keep the issue going—as Senator Schacht is trying to do—then it achieves something which I think both sides of the chamber do not wish to support. I have already stated my position.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, I invite you to note the provisions of the standing orders.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I do note in today's question time that when, according to you, an opposition senator has interjected, you have used their name in calling them to order, but when government senators have interjected, you have given a general warning to senators, which I think is both unfair and inappropriate. This is a serious point of order about the way you are calling senators to order, and I am concerned that it is partisan. I ask you in this circumstance to review the tape of this question time and take account of the serious point of order I am making to you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is a difference between a number of senators making a noise—as sometimes happens on both sides of the chamber—and individuals shouting persistently, and I take notice of that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a further point of order. There is a difference, as you have indicated, but I am drawing attention to what I believe is a different practice on your part. I am concerned that it is partisan, and I ask in this circumstance that you review what has occurred in this question time. My concern is that when a government senator is interjecting there is a general warning to senators, but you are calling opposition senators to order by name, whether that be appropriate or inappropriate. That is the matter I am raising with you, and I ask you to review it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I reject your suggestion. I will review it—I frequently review question time, and I wish others would do likewise.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. When you review the tape, I wonder if it will feature how often Senator Faulkner constantly flouts your rulings. You have called Senator Faulkner to order many times, and it has no apparent effect on him. Virtually every minister that stands up here and answers a question is subjected to constant abuse from Senator Faulkner. In the context of reviewing the tape, I think it is very important to look at the behaviour of Senator Faulkner, which I think in this chamber is absolutely disgraceful.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, and the Senate should proceed with question time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a further point of order. Under the guise of points of order, we have already had in this question time today a spurious point made by Senator Alston and now a spurious point made by Senator Kemp. That is an abuse of the standing orders of this Senate. It is an abuse of question time. While you consider the other matter, in relation to the behaviour of government senators during question time, I ask you to give that some consideration.36143614Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister agree that the proposed tax changes as they currently stand will lead to an increase in costs for state housing authorities of, at the very minimum, at least five per cent? The minister would be aware that the current round of funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement expires at the end of June. Why is the government not willing to consider providing adequate, or indeed any, extra funding to state housing authorities in the new agreement to cover the inevitable cost rises that will occur with the GST? Or does the minister agree with the statement made to the Senate Community Affairs Committee by the executive director of her department, Mr Tune, that the cost impact of the GST on public and community housing is just `the states' problem'?3614Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—An issue which is obviously of interest to all of us is how public housing will fare into the future. One of the important things to remember is that the state governments provide a range of services, some of which, under the new tax proposals, will in fact mean a substantial reduction in their costs. In terms of public housing, there will be a small increase. I am not sure whether I have the exact figure here, but I think your figure is too high, Senator, and it will be very important to keep monitoring what is happening in this area.I think that the states are very keen to sign on to a Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. They wanted particularly to have long-term funding, which of course is what has been offered and accepted—the four-year term. That is very important for them in planning their future contracting arrangements. Some of the states want to sell some of their properties and exchange them for better located and newer properties. They want to have community housing take up some of the properties so that there is more of a mixture of types of housing in one area instead of the ghettos that were the fashion years ago. So the Commonwealth is very keen to work with them in that area to achieve better outcomes for people.Some of the states have intimated that they in fact will not move to increasing rents for their tenants, as normally happens when tenants get an increase in income. Some have not made a decision on that yet. But I remind you that every payment that an income support person in public housing gets, whether it is rent assistance or whether it is the basic payment of age pension, Newstart or whatever, will go up by four per cent. People also have reduced tapers, which makes it much better; and as well families are of course getting substantial increases under the tax reform package. So people will be in a better position to meet what small cost increases there will be.Let me say that we are talking about the transitional period here because, after the transitional period of the new tax reforms, the states will be in a substantially better financial position with a growth tax which they have never had before and which, over time, will mean billions of dollars of extra money going to them. I presume you are focusing on the transitional phase, during which, as I have pointed out to you, they will have some things that they provide as services to their people which will be reduced in cost and some, like housing, where there will be a small increase.3615Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister's admission that costs for state housing authorities to provide public and community housing will go up by some degree but that funding for the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which deals with this area of housing, will not, and that she notes the importance of having a long-term, four-year Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I ask the minister: if the states and the federal government are so keen to adopt a Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, then why are we in April with no agreement having been reached and faced with the possibility of having yet another interim one-year agreement with the resultant uncertainty and restriction which that would cause? Is it not the case that some state governments at least, including coalition state governments, want to press the issue with the federal government of providing an adequate increase in Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funding to ensure that there is not a net decrease in the value of funds available for public and community housing?3615Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—You asked so many questions in that, Senator, I do not think I have the time available to deal with them. Let me remind you that the housing ministers were trying to have a definitive outcome quickly from the federal government on this question and have been lobbying to have it dealt with at the housing ministers conference. That has not taken place because all of these transitional issues are being dealt with at the Premiers Conference, which is the appropriate place, because, as I pointed out to you, some of the services which states provide will reduce in cost to them and some will increase. That Premiers Conference will be held on 9 April, from memory, and I assume that the premiers, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will come to agreements about the transitional arrangements at that time. You referred to a one-year contract. That is not in the interests of the states and I would not be endorsing it, either. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors361510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of a distinguished former President of the Senate, Sir Harold Young, a former senator from South Australia. I welcome you to the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice361536153615O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Is the minister aware that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is now restructuring the positions of flying operations inspectors, who are responsible for regulating standards for Australian licensed pilots, to auditing positions? Is he aware that there will be no requirement for the flying operations inspectors to actually fly to assess pilot skills and operating standards but that they will simply audit from the ground an increasingly self-regulated and self-administered industry? When will the government step in to prevent any further erosion of the current levels of pilot and operating standards?3615Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I appreciate a question on aviation safety because it does enable me to indicate yet again the confidence the government has in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. There were four parts to Senator O'Brien's question. Three of them asked whether I was aware of certain particular incidents. As it is not directly my portfolio, I cannot confess to being absolutely aware of the three matters, although I have read various newspaper reports. I can assure Senator O'Brien, though, that the Minister for Trans port and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, would be aware of those three issues that he raised.The fourth thing he asked was when the government was going to do something about it. Time and time again I suggest that the worst thing that could happen to air safety in Australia is if the likes of Senator O'Brien or me were to start directing air safety. That is a very technical job. It is a job for technical people to handle. Of course, CASA does have professional people, as does BASI. The government rightly leaves those very technical safety issues to the professionals, who are best able to deal with them.3616O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I take it from that answer that the minister is saying that the government would not step in to prevent any further erosion of current levels of pilot and operating standards. If you do not know the answer to this next question, you might take it on notice. Are you aware that the International Civil Aviation Organisation is due to conduct an assessment of civil aviation safety management in Australia in August this year? Does the minister believe that ICAO will endorse the practice of flying operations inspectors being land based auditors?3616Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—It is a hypothetical question to ask what I expect some international commission might determine at some time in the future. I am not allowed to answer that under Senate standing orders even were I minded to. But can I come back to the first part of Senator O'Brien's so-called supplementary question and repeat yet again that the government properly leaves matters of air safety to the professionals. The day we let Senator O'Brien and others start determining what professional air safety matters should be—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Dick Smith?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Dick Smith was a lot more professional than you, Senator. He knew a lot more about it. You come from the Transport Workers Union. I do not think you even had a truck licence, yet you were in the Transport Workers Union. Mr Dick Smith at least can fly, and he is a very able, very professional Australian. They are the sort of people that we do rely upon to keep our skies as safe as they are.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice3616361615:03:003616Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Adding to an answer I gave to Senator Brown, I am pleased that today the Australian government has announced an immediate contribution of $2 million to humanitarian organisations in the Kosovo conflict: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, CARE Australia, the Australian Red Cross and World Vision Australia.361615:04:003616Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cook today, relating to the trade deficit.In January Australia racked up a record current account deficit: it came in at $1.4 billion. In February we went one better. The current account deficit set another new high: it came in at $1.5 billion. This is a serious problem for Australia. It is a more serious and fundamental economic problem for Australia than fiddling with a new tax system. Let me quote what one of the more respected economic commentators, Alan Mitchell of the Australian Financial Review , said in his comment piece today. He said:. . . yesterday's trade figures should serve as a warning.He went on:February's $1.5 billion deficit was not just a record; it was an unpredicted record.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber and there are far too many meetings taking place. If you wish to hold a meeting, please do so while you are seated or outside the chamber. I will have to start mentioning people's names if they do not start to resume their seats and hold conversations more quietly.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—He said that it caught the markets by surprise and went the other way to what the markets expected it would do. He also said:Access Economics made the point in its latest Economics Monitor : as well as a weakening terms of trade and an unusually large current account deficit, Australia will be one of the few industrialised countries with rising inflation.Senator Hill, in answer to a serious question on this point, simply shrugged it off and falsely claimed credit, saying that the fundamental problem was the high domestic demand in Australia and that the government of which he is a part is responsible for so-called reforms that have led to this domestic demand. That is the big fallacy that the government wants to parade in Australia. The fundamental economic reforms in the Australian economy—let everyone be absolutely certain on this—were made by the previous Labor government when we floated the currency, restructured tariffs and undertook a number of other fundamental reforms; not just budget fiddling but fundamental economic change, the results of which are now being reaped by this government. That is the fundamental truth of the matter.Senator Hill's explanation is like the shrug-off that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, gave on the Neil Mitchell program on 3AW last month. When confronted with the record figures, the Treasurer said, `Oh, I expected that.' It is a bit like hearing that the city of Los Angeles has just disappeared through the fault line in an earthquake and turning around to say, `Oh, I expected that.' It does not tell us one little thing about what the government is going to do about an economic problem that is quite serious and which stares Australia in the face as a problem we must confront. This is a serious problem which this government seems to want to ignore. The only explanation it puts forward—we heard this rubbish again today from Senator Hill—is to say that the GST will fix it. `The GST will fix it,' he said, and he went on parading this argument about input costs on exports. What Senator Hill does not tell anyone, what Senator Hill maybe does not know himself, is the impact of the GST on the exchange rate and the impact therefore of the GST on exports.Of course input costs are reduced under their package but the exchange rate firms—according to the Department of the Treasury—by 3.5 per cent. In other words, the Australian dollar goes up and as a consequence of that our exports are more expensive in foreign markets than they are now. Tell that to the resource industry, which is facing price reductions everywhere. Tell that to the agricultural industry. Tell that to manufacturing exporters in this country. Tell that to the services sector, which is the biggest area of export growth. Their goods will cost more, therefore people overseas will buy less of them.A definition of a current account deficit is an excess of national investment over national savings. There are two things that a government can do about rectifying the current account deficit. The first is to improve national savings. For this government that would mean to stop fiddling with Labor's changes to superannuation and enable workers and others in this country to save for their retirement, creating a pool of investment for national development. The second way of doing it would be to support export industries. You do that by not cutting $349 million out of trade programs in Australia; by not reducing Austrade, our export wing, through budget cuts of 30 per cent; and by not cutting the Export Market Development Grants Scheme by 25 per cent. Do something to help those companies in this country that want to improve our current account. (Time expired)15:09:003617Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—If most people listening to this debate have followed economic history in Australia in recent times, they would probably find it incredibly hilarious to hear a former member of the Keating cabinet, a close personal friend and supporter of the previous Prime Minister and Treasurer, lecturing a government that has turned Australia's economic circumstances around on current account deficits and economic management. When the history of Australia is written about this decade, about the previous government, the previous Prime Minister and Senator Cook—as one of the senior ministers in the later cabinet—it will be that of a government that took Australia to the brink of financial disaster.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What a joke.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The only thing that is a joke is the disgraceful economic management of the disgraced former governments. The Hawke and Keating governments were demonstrably, with probably the small exception of the Whitlam government, the worst economic managers in this nation's history.It is part of Australian history that the government led by Mr Gough Whitlam was the worst economic manager of Australia. Under it, interest rates, debt and inflation soared to levels never heard of before. There was only one other government that even came close to running up Australia's debt, interest rates, inflation rate and unemployment rates to the sorts of rates that we saw from the Whitlam government, and that was the government that Senator Cook was a part of. He sat around the cabinet table that made the decision to pull on the economic brakes to create an economic recession that saw hundreds of thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of households lose their jobs and lose their businesses.What does Senator Cook now propose as the solution to Australia's current account deficit? Do you know what his solution is? He came in here today and said, `Why won't you spend more money?' That is the solution. It is not fundamental reform to our economic institutions. It is not for Labor to take on the hard decisions of reforming the tax system. At least to Mr Keating's credit he tried—when he was Treasurer—to reform the tax system. If you look at what Mr Keating said back in 1984 about the tax system, he saw that it was quite clear that Australia could not go into the next millennium—indeed the next decade, if you look at what he said—with a tax system designed in the 1930s.In fact if you look at the previous government's record on privatisation, they knew very well back then that you could not go into the next decade, or even the next millennium, with major public businesses—such as Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank—and a range of such organisations in public ownership while running multi-billion-dollar deficits. But what did they do? They sold billions of dollars worth of assets.They did that having deceitfully misled the Australian people at election after election. They went around saying, `We will never sell the Commonwealth Bank.' They promised the bank employees unions around the country that they would not sell the Commonwealth Bank. They looked at the union officials and, more importantly, at the bank employees who were members of those unions and said, `We won't sell the Commonwealth Bank but Mr Peacock or Dr Hewson will,' and then went off and sold a third of it. They said, `We will never sell any more than a third,' and then made it cabinet policy to sell the rest. Of course, we know that they held discussions—not very private any more—to go ahead and sell Telstra.There is one thing that would have been sure if the party opposite, the Labor Party, had been re-elected in 1996 and that is that Telstra would have been sold by now, either in part or more likely broken up into small pieces and sold. So what is the coalition's solution to the current account deficit? It is to get public debt interest down so we are not paying $10 billion, year after year, in public debt interest to foreign bankers.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—A GST, that is your solution.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Yes, Senator Sherry, a GST is very much a part of the solution. You cannot trade your way out of a current account deficit problem with a tax system that puts $4½ billion worth of lead weight around our export industries. That is what the blokes and ladies opposite, Madam Deputy President, will do when they vote in coming months against a new tax system. That is to say, we have a choice: do we export to the world or do we put $4½ billion worth of lead weight around their necks? (Time expired)15:14:003619Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are debating, in case those listening were not aware from Senator Ian Campbell's general waffle and irrelevant diatribe, yesterday's disastrous trade deficit figure—a record high of $1.5 billion. Senator Campbell chose to touch on history. Let me remind the Senate and those listening of a couple of other pieces of history. Which Prime Minister left Australia with the largest budget deficit in Australian history? It was John Howard. In 1983, when he was Treasurer, he left us with a budget deficit of $22 billion in today's money terms. Which Australian Prime Minister admitted to the media, about 18 months ago, that he had inherited an Australian economy basically in a sound condition? It was Mr Howard.We heard from Senator Hill today that the solution to our record trade deficit is tax reform, a goods and services tax. Let me say briefly why it is not a solution. Senator Cook touched on the issue of manufacturing exports. Certainly, a goods and services tax reduces the price of manufacturing exports and you sell more overseas. But the problem—the other side of the equation—is that the value of our dollar will go up, so there is no net gain from a goods and services tax for manufacturing exports.Let me go to the largest single export earner in this country, tourism. It gets whacked by a GST. There is minimal impact on tourism from a wholesale sales tax. All of the economic modellers will argue and show that tourism is hit hard by a GST, and that is our greatest export earner at this point in time. There is one other very important reason why the goods and services tax and the government's tax package are not the solutions to our current trade deficit. The important issue in relation to a trade deficit is being able to fund it. How do you fund the borrowings required to fund the trade deficit so that it does not become unsustainable? There are two ways. The first is you fund it from national savings or, secondly, you borrow the money from overseas. The great problem we have with national savings is that our national savings are going down.Senator Calvert interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—You might scoff, but you should learn some basic economics, Senator Calvert. The problem with the government's tax package is that it reduces national savings. It gives tax cuts from a budget surplus but, if savings are to go up, every dollar from those tax cuts has to be saved. So Australians, if they are to rescue us from the record high trade deficit of $1.5 billion, will have to save every cent of their tax cuts in order to maintain national savings at their current levels, and obviously Australians will not do that. They will not save every cent of their tax cuts in order to support a record trade deficit.There is only one other solution, unfortunately, for Australia, and that is to import the capital to sustain a trade deficit of $1.5 billion a month. What is the consequence of importing the capital? We will obviously increase our deficit to the international community. That means overseas ownership of Australian resources will go up. So it is not correct to claim, as Senator Hill does, that the government's tax package, and particularly a GST, will do anything for savings. It in fact leads to a decrease in savings. It adds to the problem of our record trade deficit.This government is fond of claiming credit, I think unfairly, for all economic news. Well, it can take the credit for a record trade deficit of $1.5 billion and the inevitable and very serious consequences for all Australians that will follow as a result of this record trade deficit. It is a disaster for the future of Australia. It is unsustainable. The government's policies do nothing to assist the trade deficit down and they do nothing for saving.15:19:003619Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—We have just heard a strong presentation from the Labor Party, from our colleague Senator Sherry. It was indeed very strong in terms of emotional content but rather limited in economic sense. The issue in Australia at the present time is that, despite difficulties in the Asian region, Australia has a very strong domestic economy. Having a strong domestic economy means that there is a very strong pull on imports into this country. Senator Sherry referred to Australia's ability to fund this deficit. The issue is that we should be looking at our ability to fund this trade deficit and at the underlying ratios that make sense. Our deficit, as I said, is not unexpected given our strong domestic position, with growth going at a very high rate, at the same time keeping down interest rates and, surprisingly, in terms of world scenes, keeping down inflation. In fact, our domestic economy—our economy per se—has been described as one of the miracles around the world, given the economic crisis.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Who by?VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—I will give you that in a minute. The increase is not unexpected given this very strong content. It reflects the difficult external environment in which the domestic economy is operating. Let us look at something tangible, something meaningful, with which to compare this deficit for the December quarter last year. We find that the proportion of GDP, which I believe is a far better measure of the deficit in terms of dollars, was 2.1 per cent in the December quarter. That is well below the Labor figure of 4.5 per cent in the December quarter of 1995. That, I submit, is a far better measure than some of the emotive waffle that has the potential to mislead a lot of the listeners to the debate today.The coalition government has a plan to further exports to make Australian exporters more competitive in world markets. This is certainly a GST. We have a situation where we are moving from a tax system which collects taxes and does not credit them back, to a system where there is a full credit for goods that are actually exported.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Will it help the tourist industry?VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—Yes, Senator Sherry, you are great on interjections. Let me give an example from where you live in your area of Forth. Some of the principal exports include horticultural products such as onions, peas, beans.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—And they will get hit for a six by a GST.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—These are the very industries, Senator Sherry, that are going to benefit. These are the industries around where you live, and you are not aware of the benefits.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about tourism? What about the wine industry?Senator Murphy interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry and Senator Murphy will cease interjecting and Senator Watson will address the chair and ignore the interjections, because the more you respond to them—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—He invited them.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Sherry. Senator Watson, please continue.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He is emptying the gallery.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, that is enough, thank you. Order!VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—I have been challenged to give some Tasmanian examples.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Well, address the chair, please.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—I am addressing you, Madam Deputy President. I have some Tasmanian examples where there is going to be direct benefit as a result of the GST and the full crediting of the GST back to the exporter. Because of our taxation system we compete at a disadvantage at the moment with New Zealand, particularly for markets in Japan and other places around Asia. Senator Sherry knows that our prices are loaded because of the tax impact we currently have. Senator Sherry knows that these export prices will come down under a GST and therefore Tasmanian agricultural producers will be able to compete on a level playing field. (Time expired)15:24:003620Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In taking note of Senator Hill's answer to Senator Cook's question, I have to say—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was awful.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—It was awful, Senator Faulkner, you are dead right; it was absolutely awful. Senator Hill tried to say that a strong domestic economy is going to pave the way for us into the future. That is not what the government used to say when it was in opposition. They used to lambaste us up hill and down dale about the trade deficit—so much so that you could dig up any number of speeches from the current Treasurer and current Prime Minister about this.I want to go to a few promises that the Prime Minister made with regard to this issue of the trade deficit. In 1996 he made three promises. First, he said that he would reduce the trade deficit on manufactured goods. Second, he promised to improve our performance on industrial research and development. Third, he promised—and this is very important—200,000 new jobs by the year 2000 in the manufacturing sector.What has happened? He has not got 200,000 jobs. We know what the current situation is with the trade deficit—an all-time high, an all-time record. And Senator Watson says we ought to talk about the facts. Well, these are the facts. With respect to the 200,000 jobs the Prime Minister promised we would get from the manufacturing sector, we have actually lost over 6,000. And R&D is going out the back door faster than anything you would like to put your money on in this place. Compare that with the last 27 months of the Labor government when we created over 560,000 new jobs—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—What was the unemployment rate when you left office?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—And this is what is important—to take that interjection from Senator Calvert—with regard to exports, this is what is important with respect to our trade deficit: the fact is that exports under us, over the last 10 years of our government, grew some 20 per cent per annum. That is why we were able to create jobs. What did you do when you came into office? This is the very reason we are having a problem with the trade deficit: the cuts that you made to all of the programs that assist Australia's manufacturing industry and its tourism industry create the circumstances—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Are you saying it is our fault? FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—This is your government's cuts, Senator Hill.BH4HILLSenator Hill—You are not serious, though, are you?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—These are the cuts, almost $2 billion of them in your first three budgets. You cut the R&D concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent—and we know the reaction of industry with respect to that. What else did you do? You abolished the DIFF scheme—$483 million. You cut Export Market Development Grants by $427 million, Austrade by $109 million, the International Trade Enhancement Scheme by $117 million, AusIndustry by $34 million, the Commonwealth Development Bank by $81 million, the Innovation flagships program by $20 million, agri-food business cuts by $20 million—and on it goes. You really have to wonder when you get an answer like Senator Hill's saying, `We need to change the tax system. That'll fix it. That is the only answer.'5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—That is what Cookie said.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—But you did not talk about the change to the tax system when you were in opposition; you did not say that was the remedy. Oh no, you had a different response then.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Can't you remember Fightback?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Your response was that we ought to be doing more for the enhancement of manufacturing industry. But all you have done since you came into government is cut everything. It is unacceptable to have an answer from the senior minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that `the only solution is a GST'. Nobody believes that, as was pointed out by Senator Cook and Senator Sherry. The claim that exports are GST free is a load of nonsense. It was very clearly pointed out to you that that is negated by the exchange rate. What you have to do is get back on track with proper programs like we had in place—the sorts of programs that actually increased the manufacturing sector of this country by 20 per cent per year. (Time expired)Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Can I have some order before I call Senator McGauran. There are not many of you in the chamber but the noise volume among the six of you is appalling.Senator Calvert interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Calvert, you are one of the worst offenders.15:29:003622McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Why wasn't this question asked yesterday? That is when the figures came out. Are you so off the pace with this, and do you so lack concern, that you are a day late in bringing this issue to the chamber? That is the first measure of your concern. Senator Cook made much of the fact that there was no surprise in the Treasurer's attitude towards this trade deficit. Well, there is not. It is still within the budget figures. We are still running at only about 5.5 per cent of GDP.Senator Murphy interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Murphy, you left us with a record 6.8 per cent current account deficit to GDP. That holds a world record. The figure of 5.5 per cent is still within the budget estimates and is far less than what you left us with. The markets show that they still hold confidence. Has the dollar dropped? Has it plunged, as it did with you? This is nowhere near the level of the previous government. Whenever your figures were released each month, we had a drop in the dollar and interest rates went up because you never had the fundamentals in place. We have done all the hard work to sustain our dollar at the level it is.Senator Sherry said that you need to increase your national savings. Our budget figures show that we have done that. You seem to forget that it is estimated that our exports are going to drop because of the Asian economic crisis. This is no surprise. It is not a figure we want to live with and it is a figure we are working to reduce. If only you would let some of our bills through the Senate; if only you would let our tax package through the Senate. But we are in the midst of the worst Asian economic crisis of all time so it is not a surprise to us.Your figures which came out each month—and I have them here—show that in 1988 the percentage of current account to GDP was 6.6 per cent; in 1990, 6.8 per cent; and when you left office it had blown out again to 6.8 per cent. It was worse than Mexico's. In fact, you left us with the worst figures in the world and, on each occasion, you had to jack up the interest rate to prevent them from getting worse. That is when we had an Australian dollar worth around 70c or 80c. Combined with the current account crisis, we had a domestic market with high interest rates, high inflation and a surge in debt, which is a consequence of the current account. Is it any wonder that, on each release of the figures, there was a rush to sell off the dollar?The market has confidence in this government's economic strategy, and there has not been that rush, there has not been that collapse. The figure is slightly outside market predictions and so you are going to get slight adjustments. The truth of the matter is that the market would have sold the dollar off far more had it not believed that the fundamentals were in place. The fundamentals are in place, even though you have attempted to stop us at every turn. We have increased public savings by producing a balanced budget with all that effort. We have reduced the government debt. We have increased exports and diversified our markets.Senator Murphy interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Thank goodness for that, Senator Murphy. Thank goodness we have not just relied on Asia for our markets, as you and the previous government would have. In fact, in the short time that we have been in government, our good Minister for Trade has gone about increasing our bilateral relationships. In the past nine months our exports to the USA have increased by 40 per cent; to the UK by 30 per cent; to India, which is a brand-new market, by 30 per cent; to Germany, which is now investing in this country and setting up some of its corporate headquarters here, by 30 per cent; against the trend, to Japan by seven per cent; and to Hong Kong by eight per cent. We have been working hard for our exporters, diversifying their markets and not just relying on the one market. Tim Fischer has taken particular interest in the South American market.The final benefit we can bring to our exporters is the tax package. Over $4.8 billion in savings will be brought to the exporters if our tax package is passed in this Senate. There could not be a greater and bigger benefit for our exporters at this very difficult time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations362315:34:003623Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Madam Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct the facts.Leave granted.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—During my presentation I referred to Australia as the `miracle economy' and there was an interjection across the table that I had made that up. For the record, that was a statement made by the eminent Professor Paul Klugman, who is the Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Notices362336233623Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I give notice that, at the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the base for calculation of the superannuation guarantee and the Liberals' new superannuation tax or `surcharge' are substantially different, the latter including most forms of income such as overtime whereas the former excludes many forms of income such as overtime, (ii) the superannuation guarantee still allows some employees to use a base for calculating the superannuation guarantee that is less than the definition of ordinary time earnings, (iii) as a consequence, some employees are receiving superannuation guarantee payments based on incomes less than $73,000 a year (the starting point for the operation of the superannuation tax or `surcharge') but are being assessed for the superannuation tax or `surcharge', and (iv) this unfairness is highlighted by employees at the Pasminco, Roseberry mine operation where the earnings base for superannuation guarantee contributions by the employer is $24,900 per annum but earnings range from $68,000 to $80,000 a year, requiring the payment of the Liberals' superannuation tax or `surcharge' by a significant proportion of the workforce; andVJ4WATSONSenator Watson—That was also possible under your arrangements.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Senator Watson, we did not introduce the superannuation tax. You introduced it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry, would you please continue with your notice of motion, which is rather long.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—My notice of motion continues:(b) urges the Government, at the first available opportunity, to amend the appropriate superannuation legislation to correct this serious and grossly unfair anomaly.Senator Watson interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will pass your interjections along to the workers at Pasminco, Senator Watson. I am sure they will not thank you for that nonsense.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry and Senator Watson, would you please cease bickering across the chamber.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) two hundred and fifty young people met in the National Youth Congress in Canberra, on 31 March 1999, to consider issues of importance to Australia's young people, and (ii) the report of the congress recommended that government adopt more youth-friendly policies and also consider issues such as an apology to the stolen generation; and(b) urges the Government to take note of these concerns, which echo the recommendations of the National Youth Roundtable, held in February 1999, and of the former peak youth body, the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition.Senator Margetts to move, also on behalf of Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Forshaw, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with concern: (i) the decision by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to give environmental approval to the proposed new research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney, and (ii) that there is strong community opposition to the construction of a nuclear research reactor in suburban Sydney; and(b) calls on the Government to delay the final decision on this controversial proposal until the tabling of reports on the new research reactor by the Economics References Committee and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and the government responses to those reports.Senator Forshaw to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) in recent weeks, Coalition senators, particularly Senators Tierney and Vanstone, have sought to attack the New South Wales Labor Government in a desperate attempt to try and help their Coalition colleagues in the New South Wales Liberal and National Parties, (ii) these senators have tried to use the tragic issue of drug addiction for purely party political purposes, (iii) on 27 March 1999, Premier Carr led the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to a resounding landslide victory at the New South Wales elections, (iv) in contrast to the election of the Coalition Government at the 1998 federal election, the Carr Government gained both a majority of seats and a majority of votes at the State election, and (v) this victory demonstrates that the people of New South Wales overwhelmingly support the policies of the Carr Labor Government on such important issues as education, health, employment, drugs and law enforcement and the retention of government ownership of the electricity industry;(b) congratulates Premier Carr and the New South Wales ALP for their brilliant cam paign and victory based on good policies and sound economic management; and(c) condemns Senators Tierney and Vanstone for their politically-motivated attacks and calls on them to publicly acknowledge that they were wrong and to apologise to Premier Carr and the New South Wales ALP.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) endorses the Coalition senators' recommendation, in the 25th Report of the Select Committee on Superannuation, that, `future members of parliament should not receive any pension benefit until age 55' (paragraph 3.90); and(b) considers that current members of parliament should be allowed only actuarially discounted benefits, as determined by the Australian Government Actuary, if taking the benefits before the age of 55 (paragraph 3.91).Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that 31 March 1999 is a national day of action against the Government's voluntary student unionism legislation;(b) recognises voluntary student unionism;(c) supports the National Union of Students' national day of action;(d) calls on the Government to discontinue its attacks on student organisations; and(e) recognises the valuable and vital contribution student organisations make to campus life.Senator Bourne to move, also on behalf of Senator Margetts and Senator Cook, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) welcomes: (i) the Prime Minister of Vietnam, His Excellency Mr Phan Van Khai, to Australia, and (ii) the recent steps taken to improve the overall human rights situation in Vietnam, most notably the release of a number of people held in Vietnam for the peaceful expression of political or religious views under a Presidential Amnesty, including 13 people on whose behalf the Australian Government has expressed concern; (b) notes that a commitment has been given by the Government of Vietnam that further amnesties will be granted in 1999 and 2000;(c) encourages the Government of Vietnam to include in further amnesties all remaining prisoners detained for peaceful political and religious activities, including Mr Nguyen Dinh Huy, Mr Nguyen Ngoc Tan and United Buddhist Church of Vietnam clergy, Thich Thien Minh and Thich Hue Dang;(d) calls for the immediate release of Mr Nguyen Thanh Giang, arrested on 4 March 1999 for the peaceful dissemination of political views;(e) welcomes the fact that the Government of Vietnam invited the United Nations (UN) Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance to visit Vietnam in 1998, to look into the situation of religious freedom in that country;(f) calls on the Government of Vietnam to: (i) implement the recommendations of the UN Rapporteur concerning the relaxation or lifting of limitations placed on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief, and (ii) lift the administrative detention order placed on the leader of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Thich Huyen Quang; and(g) calls on the Australian Government to maintain an on-going and cooperative approach with the Government of Vietnam in dialogue on human rights issues.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes:(a) the launch of the 1999 Easter bilby by Haigh's Chocolates;(b) that the bilby is an endangered species;(c) that Haigh's Chocolates contributes proceeds from the chocolate Easter bilby sales to the Anti-Rabbit Research Foundation of Australia for a rabbit-free Australia; and(d) the work of the foundation involves the protection of endangered species and lessening the impact of rabbits on Australia's environment.Senator Allison to move, also on behalf of Senator Margetts, on the next day of sitting:That the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 4 and made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 , be disallowed. Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises the need for a preamble to Australia's Constitution which sets out the shared values and aspirations of this nation, and which can inspire all Australians;(b) encourages all Australians to offer comment on the draft preamble released by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard); and(c) urges the Prime Minister to establish a framework for consideration of this comment and incorporation of greater public participation in the process of drafting Australia's new preamble.Senator Robert Ray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) all executive departments have now responded to questions on notice nos 318 to 334 relating to the investigation of unauthorised disclosures by departments, (ii) only the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to provide an answer to the question, and (iii) all other departments, including the departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Defence and the Treasury, were able to provide complete responses to the questions without prejudicing any inquiries into unauthorised disclosures;(b) condemns the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Fischer) for refusing to disclose routine information provided by every other department and agency in the Commonwealth; and(c) understands the Ministers' sensitivity about questions relating to leaks, given that the department concerned is the most disclosure-prone department in Australia.Committees36253625362515:43:003625Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the fifth report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave not granted.Notices36263626Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 155 standing in her name for today, relating to native title legislation, be postponed till 22 April 1999.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 Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 172 standing in her name for today, relating to reproductive cloning of human beings, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 150 standing in his name for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Newman), be postponed till the next day of sitting.36263626Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—Madam Deputy President, at the request of Senator Hill, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4.3626Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 171 standing in his name for today, relating to the national environment platform, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Documents36263626Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of government documents not be proceeded with today. Committees362636263626Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Select Committee on a New Tax System for inquiry and report by 30 April 1999:A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999.(2) That, when the bills referred to in paragraph (1) are first introduced in the Senate, they be considered together with the bills for a new tax system introduced in the Senate on 10 December 1998 until the second reading, and then consideration of the bills in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for 30 April 1999 without any question being put.36263626Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia in relation to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) be extended to 30 June 1999. Miscellaneous3627Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Denman) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that, at the recent local government elections in Tasmania, Mary Binks was elected as the first female Mayor of Devonport;(b) congratulates Mayor Binks on her success; and(c) pays tribute to former Mayor Squibb for his dedication and commitment to the Devonport Municipality over a period of 14 years.Miscellaneous3627Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes:(i) media reports on 18 March 1999 stating that the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) is taking to Cabinet the concerns of the resources industry regarding the proposed trade-off between accelerated depreciation and a lower corporate tax rate, and(ii) the widespread and serious concerns relating to the negative environmental impact of the Government's proposed new tax system raised by a wide range of medical and environmental groups, industry groups and specialists; and(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Dr Wooldridge) to take the environmental and medical concerns to Cabinet with the same vigour as their economic portfolio colleagues.Miscellaneous362715:50:003627Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 173 standing in my name for today, relating to the abrogation of human rights in Burma and the situation regarding Aung San Suu Kyi, be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is an objection to this motion being taken as formal.362715:50:003627Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 173.Once again we are in the situation where the opposition has moved to prevent a vote on an extremely important matter of public interest in Australia and overseas. The Labor Party's situation in this is dictated by the government. If the government assents to the motion, the Labor Party allows it to go through; if the government does not, the Labor Party refuses to have a vote on it. It is an extraordinary situation where Her Majesty's opposition in the Senate is having the business of foreign affairs in so far as these motions are concerned dictated by the government's position on any given occasion. I hope that the ALP will have a look again at that situation.I know the arguments that Senator Faulkner may put forward on this but they fall short of the mark when we consider the importance of such matters as the recent dastardly treatment of San Suu Kyi in Burma with the death of her husband. It was a situation where she obviously could not leave the country because the military dictatorship would have prevented her coming back. Though she is the legitimately elected head of government in that country, she is denied her rightful place as leader of the Burmese people because of the military junta's refusal to accept the democratic vote of the Burmese people. She was in the situation where her husband was dying of cancer in Britain, but he was refused entry to Burma to see her before he died. The situation is so horrible that she cannot even leave the country to go to his funeral. At a personal level, this brings home what a wretched lot of people the ruling dictatorship in Burma are. On a much wider level, however, the extraordinary deprivation of human rights and the horrible circumstances in which many Burmese people live are not so well known amongst Australians. In Burma tens of thousands of people are drafted into work camps, are living in subhuman conditions, are forced to work as slaves on such so-called developmental projects as roads, quarries, dam building and so on, and are suffering enormously out of the view of the rest of the world. I should add that were this motion in either the US Senate or the US Congress it would pass with no trouble. Part of the motion reads:. . . calls on the Australian Government to suspend trade and investment in Burma until a tripartite dialogue within Burma leads to meaningful democratic reforms and an end to human rights violations.This is what the United States government has done. It is not what the Australian government has done because, again, trade gets in the way of humanitarian ideals—no matter how grossly human rights are being violated by dictatorships elsewhere in the world. I might also remind the Senate of the powerful condemnation of the Burmese military by the United Nations in successive votes for the dreadful way in which it is treating the people of Burma, not least such minority groups as the Karen. This is a matter that ought to be debated in this Senate. This is a matter which seems to have gone off the public record as far as Australian government affairs are concerned. When circumstances arise such as the democratically elected head of state in Burma being denied her rightful position and then even being denied ordinary civilities when the death of her partner occurs, it is time for us to be debating such matters in the Senate.The Greens are concerned about that human rights situation and want the matter dealt with. The Greens believe this is an urgent matter and that it is the right time to be joining the rest of the world in condemning the military junta in Burma. The Senate has a right to debate and to vote on such matters.15:56:003628Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I do not wish to detain the Senate for any great length of time but, given what we have heard, as a government we should be putting our point of view across as to why we are opposed to the suspension of standing orders. As I understand it, a very similar motion to this was carried yesterday by the Senate, and we supported that as a government.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would make it clear that the motion moved yesterday was very different from the motion we are considering now.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I think that intervention by Senator Brown shows the lack of sincerity in which this matter is being approached by him. A very similar motion was considered by this Senate yesterday and, as I understand it, had the unanimous support of this chamber. We are now getting a revamped version with Senator Brown's motion, and he is then asking for the suspension of standing orders when we have basically dealt with the matter yesterday.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That is not true, and you know it is not true.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Brown, you were heard in silence. Please allow Senator Abetz to be heard in silence.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—The government has no difficulties with the first two sections of Senator Brown's motion that deal with the profound regret and sympathy in the wake of the recent personal tragedy of the leader of the opposition on the death of her husband. We also note the reports of the ongoing nationwide tragedy of the people in Burma.However, Senator Brown's motion goes on to suggest that we should call on the Australian government to suspend trade and investment in Burma, which is something that we as a government do not believe should necessarily occur at this stage. What often happens when one does that is that it is the people who suffer while, unfortunately, the junta and the government continue. We are not sure that the suggestion being made by Senator Brown is of real benefit to those that I am sure all of us in this chamber are wanting to support and to whom we would all wish to send our very best wishes and best hopes for the future.It is a tragic situation that confronts the Burmese people. It is a matter of deep regret that even though the leader of the opposition would have been allowed out of the country to visit her ailing husband, the reality is she would never have been allowed back in. I think that is why she made a very tough decision not to visit her husband before his death. Those sorts of circumstances are not supported by anybody in this chamber. We have expressed our views on that yesterday. We as a government believe the Senate would be better placed spending its time moving on to an issue beside the one we have already dealt with yesterday.15:59:003629O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The Labor Party's position on formality in foreign policy issues has been spelt out a number of times. I again refer the Senate, and Senator Brown in particular, to the Hansard of 27 May 1998, page 3245, where Senator Faulkner says:In cases where there is not unanimous agreement on such motions, the opposition will not be agreeing to formality. We take the view that foreign policy motions should not be decided without debate.It is clear from what Senator Abetz says that there is not unanimous agreement on this motion; therefore, for all the reasons outlined in the Hansard on that day, the opposition has not agreed to formality on this occasion. That will continue to be our policy.16:00:003629Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—As Senator Abetz said, there was a motion similar to part (a) of this motion moved and passed by the Senate yesterday. It was passed without dissent and I thank the Senate for that. It was very strong on the tragedy of the death of Dr Michael Aris and gave the Senate's condolences to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her two sons, Alexander and Kim.I agree with the other two parts to Senator Brown's motion—I have agreed with them for years and years. I have tried to put them up as recommendations of committees and goodness knows what. I am not sure that now is exactly the time, considering the disallowances, to debate this, but I think and always will that the debate on human rights probably comes before everything else. I would vote for speaking on this before we speak on the Australia-West Indies cricket test and why it was not on free to air, which the opposition has put up, to come on later today. This is probably more important, but it was not put up as a matter of public importance this morning and the other one was.I do think it is a very important motion and I do think that it was very important that the Senate send our condolences to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which we did, and that the Senate condemn in no uncertain terms, which we did, the treatment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by the State Peace and Development Council, formerly known as the SLORC, of Burma—the military junta. I again thank all senators for their support of that very strong motion yesterday.16:02:003629Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is a different motion, as has been pointed out, in a couple of respects, and they have been mentioned in relation to the noting of the depth of problems associated with the decision by the government and in relation to the urgent need for the Australian government to realise that the so-called `constructive engagement policy' is not actually working to any great extent.I take umbrage at the statement by Senator Abetz that the people of Burma might be upset that we would pass this motion. During the discussions about apartheid in South Africa, I heard from a number of people that it was actually the people of South Africa who were asking countries like Australia to not trade and not participate in sporting events and so on. I have also spoken to a number of people in Australia who have been and still are highly traumatised from unfair imprisonment and torture in Burma and they want to see Australia participating and taking a responsible and useful role. If it means that we do not trade, that is what they are asking for. That is what they themselves are asking Australia to do—that we do not reward Burma, for instance, by continuing to encourage their membership of South-East Asian associations and so on. The SLORC government has used the nod and wink acceptance of their membership into those organisations to indicate that they are legitimate and their actions are legitimised. Unfortunately that has been the case on more than one occasion.The issues are urgent. It is not a matter of this issue of trade being a new issue; it has been on the cards for a long time. The Greens have certainly mentioned it on more than one occasion that I can recall—writing a dissenting report in relation to constructive engagement. I do believe that we can no longer shove these things under the carpet. I am indicating that I support the motion to debate this issue further.Question resolved in the negative.Matters of Public Importance3630363010000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from Senator Faulkner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The incompetence of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, in failing to secure free-to-air telecast of the Australia/West Indies cricket test series.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal agreements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.16:05:003630Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Today the Labor Party is raising a matter of public importance—an issue of great significance to the millions of sports fans throughout Australia. It is the dismal lack of coverage of the current Australian cricket tour of the West Indies. It is a matter of great concern to Australian cricket fans that, in the absence of a subscription to Foxtel, the only coverage available is a sporadic and inadequate ABC radio commentary.I invite senators to consider the facts. There is not one minute's live coverage of either test or one-day cricket on this tour on free-to-air television. There is no highlights package on free-to-air television. What is left is an ABC broadcast which runs through the night but ceases at six o'clock on most mornings as the regular breakfast shows go to air. This can mean up to 3½ hours of commentary is lost.Senators do not need to be reminded of the great significance to Australian sports fans of any cricket test series. Historically, the rivalry between Australia and the West Indies is great, and I think this latest series has served to remind us why that is the case. Both sides of this chamber acknowledge that the availability of test cricket coverage is a matter of public importance.It was a little over four years ago when the then ALP government was the target of significant criticism from the coalition on the matter of television coverage of the 1995 Australian cricket tour of the West Indies. In March of that year, the Senate was subjected to a full-frontal assault by Liberal Party senators, who expressed their great concern at the prospect that coverage of the tour would be limited to a small pay television provider and would thereby be lost to the average cricket fan. Senators Alston, Ferguson, Crane and Tierney, among others, stood in this chamber and—with all the sincerity that they could collectively muster—pleaded with the government to guarantee that the Australian viewing public would not be denied their right to watch our team in action in the Caribbean.Senator Tierney went as far as putting to this chamber a motion that condemned the government for its failure to act to ensure free-to-air coverage. It accused the responsible minister of buck-passing, insisted that the minister—not the television networks—take responsibility for ensuring free-to-air coverage and, last but not least, demanded that the government act to protect the rights of millions of low income viewers who relied on free-to-air television to see the West Indies cricket telecast.At about the same time, Senator Tierney breathlessly invoked Australian cricketing achievement. He highlighted this in a media statement dated 28 February 1995. In that statement he posed the question: `What is the closest ever winning result in the history of test cricket?' He answers, `On the last West Indies tour of Australia, the Windies won in Adelaide by one run—the closest ever winning result in over 100 years of test cricket.' Then he delivers the punchline: `It could so easily happen again. But if it does, will we get to see it?' Well, it did happen. It happened this morning when the West Indies won a very close test cricket match. The television ratings for the Adelaide test that Senator Alston referred to were 42 per cent. This morning the ratings were zilch; zero; nothing at all; nought.In 1995 it seemed that Senator Alston really cared about the cricket fans of Australia and was horrified at the prospect that they may be denied access to coverage of cricket. When we revisit the 1995 debates we discover that, while Senator Alston opened the bowling for the Liberal Party, there was no shortage of trundlers on that side of the chamber—the opposition benches—to follow him.On 2 March 1995, Senator Tierney put a motion to the chamber which condemned the government's inaction on the matter of free-to-air telecasts of the West Indies cricket tour. In his speech, he insisted that the minister keep his promise that viewers would not be forced to pay to watch major sporting events. At the time, his conviction seemed sincere; where does it stand now? Has he approached the minister and railed against the evils of pay television and supported the rights of low income earners? Very unlikely. Has he delivered on behalf of Australia's cricketing public? No, of course he has not. His contribution in 1995 was clearly no more sincere than that of Senator Alston; his performance no less guilty of overacting.Of course he is not alone in that. Senator Ferguson, on the same day, berated the then government for failing to intervene. The market, he told the Senate, had failed and it was the minister's responsibility to act quickly to ensure free-to-air coverage. Misty eyed, he pleaded across the chamber to us: `What about the low income earners in Australia?' Well, what about the low income earners in Australia? The same low income earners, because of the direct intervention of the then Labor government in 1995, were able to watch full, live and uninterrupted telecasts from the Caribbean. I invite Senator Ferguson to rise in the chamber today and explain to Australia's cricket fans why he no longer defends their right to free-to-air telecasts, as he so passionately did then. What exactly has changed? Why hasn't he been knocking on the door of the minister—demanding intervention, pleading the case for ordinary Australians on this issue? Are we simply to assume that, like Senators Tierney and Alston, Senator Ferguson was engaged in nothing more than political puffery of the most opportunistic kind?Senator Crane described the issue as `an absolute tragedy for the education processes of young people in this country and their ability to see the very best'. I agree with Senator Crane. Of course it is crucial for the development of future sporting talent in the country that there is wide exposure of Australian sporting endeavour. It was partly in recognition of this that the Labor government did act in 1995 to deliver free-to-air coverage. So I ask Senator Crane: if it was important for the education of Australia's young just four years ago, what could possibly have changed in the meantime? Why hasn't he stood up in the Liberal Party room and made the point? Why hasn't he written to the minister? Can this senator point to one single act on his part to protect those young Australians he spoke of? Senator Crane joins his colleagues in a shameful line-up of inaction from the Liberal Party. The clamouring protesters of 1995 have been reduced to absolute silence in 1999.The Liberal Party's criticism of the Labor government and Mr Lee in 1995 was over the antisiphoning list Labor had introduced to try to ensure free-to-air coverage of major sporting events. It was a sincere effort by the Labor government to respond to the policy challenges that were presented by the advent of pay television in this country. It was by no means a perfect formula, and we were aware at the time that changes may well need to be made. But let us look at the results. Despite the teething problems that were associated with the antisiphoning list, when the crunch came, Labor delivered. As a result of the proactive intervention of the then Labor minister, Mr Lee, every cricket fan in Australia had access to full, live and uninterrupted coverage of the 1995 test series.Let us bring the clock forward four years from that time. Let us impose the same scrutiny on the current minister for communications in the Howard government. Today, under Senator Alston's stewardship, the Australian cricket follower has been almost totally shut out from the current tour of the West Indies unless they subscribe to Foxtel. Has the minister negotiated simulcast arrangements with free-to-air broadcasters, as was the case in 1995? No. Has the minister been able to ensure that an adequate highlights package is available to free-to-air broadcasters? No such luck.We have some questions for Senator Alston. In the years since the minister so eloquently invoked our nation's love of cricket in the name of free-to-air coverage, what on earth has happened? Where has all the love gone from Senator Alston? Don't Australian cricket fans matter to Senator Alston anymore? When did Senator Alston stop caring about Australian cricket fans? If Senator Alston recalls any of his legal training, he must surely appreciate the notion of precedent. His words in 1995:If Australian cricket fans are denied a free and direct telecast, the blame will rest squarely on Mr Lee's shoulders.Mr Lee did not need to be told that. That is why it was Labor's minister for communications who successfully negotiated an arrangement whereby there was free-to-air coverage of the 1995 tour. Today, under the coalition government, Australian cricket fans are denied a free and direct telecast, and the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the current communications minister, Senator Richard Alston.Senator Alston's performance over the 1995 tour has been exposed for what it was: a cynical mix of feigned outrage and crocodile tears. His eyes were focused directly on the political main chance. He shamelessly tapped into a rich vein of affection for cricket in our community—the same affection that we have in this country for sport generally. This was not really about the rights of cricket fans, it was not really about the principle of free-to- air coverage of a national sporting event, and it certainly was not about his so-called concerns for low income earners who could not afford pay television. It was about scoring political points in the only sport that Senator Alston has ever cared about—political one-upmanship.Senator Alston is the minister who told Mr Lee in 1995 that the buck stopped with Mr Lee. He said, `Stand up to the media heavyweights. Stand up for the little guy who loves his cricket and can't possibly afford to watch it.' As Senator Alston has shown so often in the past, his words speak so much louder than his actions. His fiery rhetoric in opposition is replaced by timid inaction in government, and the minister deserves no less than to be judged by his own standard. There is no free and direct telecast. He is the minister, it is his responsibility and he has failed that responsibility. The reason he has failed is that he is not really in charge of his portfolio at all. Every senator knows that the real minister for communications is the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.We sympathise with Senator Alston because we know that his portfolio is often susceptible to prime ministerial interference, but I can remember no time when a minister has so placidly rolled over and accepted his role as a doormat with so little protest. Senator Alston might be the front man, he might have his face on the letterhead and on the departmental home page, but I have to say that that is about it. The Prime Minister knew that in Senator Alston he had the classic Clayton's minister—that there was no danger that the minister's intellectual rigour, work ethic and policy grasp would represent a threat in any way to the Prime Minister's total and complete domination over Senator Alston's portfolio.It is not a matter of a minister being rolled. We all know that in any government ministers get rolled on policy matters from time to time. But we also know that in order to get rolled you have to be in there battling for something—taking a position, arguing a point. Senator Alston never does that. He picks up his ministerial salary cheque, no doubt enjoys his subsidised cabinet room banqueting and revels in his globetrotting. But he is an incompetent minister who has no control over the agenda in his department. He has treated Australian cricket followers with absolute contempt, and his Senate colleagues stand arm-in-arm with him as he presides over one of the shabbiest arrangements we have ever had for cricket coverage in modern cricket history. We say that this is insincerity in the extreme on the part of Senator Alston. It is total hypocrisy on a matter of vital importance to sport loving Australians. (Time expired)16:23:003633Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It is, I guess, fantastic in one respect to have for the history books of Australia a record at the end of March 1999 that shows where the Australian Labor Party in the federal parliament stood on the great national issues.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—This is a motion you moved four years ago, you goose.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It will show the record of this very noisy but discredited opposition at the end of March 1999, only a few months before the turn of the millennium, when Australia was situated in a region with economic instability, where we had to move Australia to a new era in terms of our economy to get rid of the dead hand of the failed Labor policies.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Is the minister coming in or not?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Of course the minister is coming here, but he will come here when it suits him, not when it suits Senator Ray or Senator Murphy. I must apologise on behalf of the minister to all honourable senators that he is not able to leave consideration of telecommunications and broadcasting issues to race down to the chamber today to debate with Senator Ray, a distinguished former minister, on whether or not we can get a free-to-air telecast of the cricket.The fundamental proposition put by this motion is in fact that we should have the broadcasting decisions of the four, as it is, major free-to-air networks in Australia determined from the ministerial office in this building. That is what we have determined. After 15 minutes of his typical sledging, diatribe and name calling which he gets away with day in and day out here, the one thing that Senator Faulkner said that was accurate—and I do not know whether he said this, but he implied it—was that the antisiphoning laws that govern this country were put in place by the former government. That is the law that determines whether or not free-to-air television receives cricket. When you have a test such as the one played early this morning Australian time, the antisiphoning laws require the network that has the rights to those broadcasts to offer them to all four of the free-to-air networks—to offer them, firstly, the full coverage and, secondly, I understand, a highlights package. Not one of our free-to-air networks picked it up. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation—TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—They have no money.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—That great institution that is so solidly supported by Senator Bourne and particularly by members opposite, who take a great interest in all of the board appointments, of course, did not take up the offer, nor did the Ten, Seven or Nine networks. That process took place under Labor's legislation. The problem with the proposition Senator Faulkner puts, which is that we should follow former Minister Lee's proposal and run programming policy out of the minister's office, is that we have to ensure that the minister should decide what goes on free-to-air. In fact, this is the proposal for nationalisation of broadcasting. I think it is important because Minister Lee did it as soon pay TV came in.Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I should go back through the Labor Party's policy problems with pay TV—they were the root cause of this. The antisiphoning laws and the introduction of pay TV into Australia were of course one of Labor's major policy disasters. In the minutes left to me in this debate I will look at a couple of those matters. The reason that Minister Lee had to come in and put pressure on the free-to-air networks was the disastrous communications policy of the previous government. At the time it was introduced I think former Senator Bob Collins was in charge of it. We had the infamous cascading bids fiasco, you will remember, and then the antisiphoning fiasco. I do not think anyone could possibly have presumed that, for the foreseeable future in Australian broadcasting, the minister would be telling the national broadcasters and the other free-to-air broadcasters what they should be showing on TV every night. If Labor wanted to propose that as a policy then, of course, the minister would intervene and ensure that the free-to-air networks showed a whole range of different programs. But I do not think they honestly believe this. I think this is a cheap publicity stunt and it shows the policy agenda of Labor. That leads us to the disastrous broadcasting policy that was overseen particularly by Minister Collins.But what do we see as the third way from Labor? We are not sure what the first or second ways from Labor are, they have not worked that out, but they have certainly indicated a third way. I think that over recent weeks in communications policy and native title policy, and even in constitutional reform policy, Labor have shown their credentials. I think they have discovered a third way. It is not a particularly clear-cut vision. It is not a clear-cut philosophy or even a strategy, but certainly in communications policy we see that the new half of the glimmer twins, Mr Stephen Smith, the member for Perth, who is their shadow spokesman in this area, has said that, on communications, their policy is, `We will have a review.' So, in relation to telecommunications policy, his policy is, `Let's have a review.'In relation to native title, a crucial national issue that affects your state and my state in particular, Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, during a heated debate Labor could not come up with any alternative policy on native title. The Western Australian Labor Party are still having enormous internal ructions trying to decide what their policy is. But what is Mr Beazley's policy? It is a bit like Mr Smith's. It is, `Let's have a round table, let's have a discussion, let's have a talk.' So on two crucial areas of national policy the Labor Party's policy is, `Let us just have a committee or a discussion.' Just last week, when the preamble was presented to the Australian people by the Australian Prime Minister, what was Mr Kim Beazley's solution to that? What is the Labor policy on the preamble? It is, `Let's go and refer it to a committee.'That is Labor's new third way: it is not to have a decision, not to have a policy, let's all go and have a powwow and a cup of tea and sit around a table. This takes me back to where I began. Here on the last day of March in 1999, and as we enter the new millennium, what do Labor talk about? Not any major national issues. They do not have any policies. Their only policy is to have a committee, a review or a round table. And they want to talk about cricket. (Time expired)16:31:003634Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—This debate raises some very important issues. The important issues that it raises are ownership and diversity of Australian broadcast media. That is what is behind this. Antihoarding and antisiphoning have long been the subject of extreme debate in this chamber. But let us face it: the antihoarding lists are not easy. They never have been. They are meant to be about the broadcast of important events but they contain only sport. For some, the adage `too much sport is barely enough' might be true—thanks to Rampaging Roy Slaven and HG Nelson—but for others of us too much sport is simply too much sport. And I am a cricket fan. So I am not going to spend too much time talking about cricket, because the issue is really wider than that.This debate is really a debate about vertical integration inside broadcasting in Australia. It is really a debate about the concentration of media ownership in this country which allows the one commercial free-to-air operator, because of its economic strength, to buy up almost anything it wants. Of course, this is the result of the free market that is so valued by so many economists and their acolytes. The free market determines the cost of programs and therefore determines the ability of broadcasters to purchase those programs. The end result is that one broadcaster is able to purchase most of the valued sports programs across all the codes: rugby, football, league, cricket and tennis. The list goes on.The strength of the market share of one network creates an almost insurmountable barrier to others gaining access to that product, in this case to the Australia-West Indies test cricket series. The absence of other purchasers means that one commercial network is able to hoard a product until they decide it is not in their interests to broadcast the series. Under negotiation with other broadcast service providers, the right to broadcast the product is sold elsewhere. In this case it was sold to the pay TV operator Foxtel, who I might add were offered the rights to the series by the West Indian Cricket Board after the free-to-air broadcasters turned them down. So approximately two and a half million people have been watching the series, in their homes and in clubs. Of course, that is better than none.Pay TV does have the capacity to deliver a product to an audience in instances where the commercial free-to-air operator no longer believes it to be in their commercial interests to do so. But we also need to ask whether this motion would have been raised had the results not been as close and as exciting as they were. Senator Woodley told me just today that he stopped eating his toast this morning in order not to miss one second of the final moments of the cricket test. He heard it on the radio. The problem was that he was not able to see it on free-to-air television. That is a problem, and it has been a problem for millions of Australians who do not have pay TV, who only have free-to-air television. What the Australian broadcasting sector needs is genuine diversity of voice and the proper cross-media rules to achieve that diversity. We need to ensure that as many media voices as possible are heard, that media outlets are owned by different people across different markets and that those different markets are able to deliver diverse content.That brings me to the minister's real and enduring failure. Senator Ian Campbell mentioned the ABC. We are talking about diversity of content and diversity of ownership at a time when the minister is doing everything he can to nobble, to cripple, to decimate and to destroy the ABC. The ABC is Australia's real provider of broadcasting diversity. The ABC broadcasts content free from commercial pressure and in so doing is able to deliver content which appeals to a wide cross-section of the community, including sports fans and, interestingly, sports fans who are interested in women's sport and in different codes. The minister's failure is in carrying out an ideologically driven vendetta against the ABC. Starving the ABC of its funds means that the ABC cannot afford to purchase the rights to a whole spectrum of content, including sport, and especially cannot afford to produce its own content. This is a voice for Australians within Australia, no matter where they reside, no matter what their level of income, no matter what their program interests, their ethnic or their cultural background.In rural communities it is the ABC which provides diversity, it is the ABC which provides local content, it is the ABC which provides a broadcasting service that the metropolitan commercial free-to-air broadcasters continue to believe is not commercially viable. I might add that it was ABC Radio that provided commentary for that test match this morning. Ironically, it is also the pay TV industry which is making inroads into rural communities to provide the content and programming diversity missing in these communities. The level of Australian content remains a sticking point, but at least there is some level of service provided to our country cousins.If the ABC were properly funded, it would be able to purchase these programs hoarded by its commercial counterparts and even those programs that the commercial counterparts do not want to buy, such as the Australia-West Indies cricket. But the government steadfastly refuses to provide the ABC with adequate recurrent funding, let alone the funding it is going to require to convert to digital technology. I have no doubt that in the short term the ABC must suffer because of this and every one of us will suffer because of this. We see in today's newspaper an article in relation to the ABC's television production capacity being relocated to Melbourne. This has everything to do with the government forcing the ABC to sell its real estate holdings, despite advice from independent auditors Arthur Andersen that it is against the public broadcaster's interest to sell real estate to fund its digital conversion. We should be clear on this: the sale of real estate will not be able to be used for production purposes. The minister's short-sightedness and arrogant refusal to take any of the ABC's or Arthur Andersen's advice on the dire consequences of selling real estate will force the ABC to be nothing more in the end than a news service. But I do not think this minister would be any the happier even with that outcome.At this most crucial time in the history of this region, the minister continues to refuse to reopen the Cox Peninsula for Radio Australia news broadcasts. Several community groups have pleaded with the minister to reopen the Cox Peninsula transmission facility because independent news broadcasts delivered in shortwave are so important to them. The East Timorese, Malaysian, Burmese and Vietnamese communities all want the ABC's Radio Australia shortwave broadcasts restored, but the minister still refuses to listen.In Europe, the crisis in Kosovo is being filmed and reported by Australians employed by the ABC. I cannot help but notice the difference in broadcasts from other networks who do not have people on the ground there. Relying on overseas broadcasts is simply not good enough; it is just not the same. Despite globalisation, we still require news and current affairs reports to be broadcast into our lounge rooms by our own voices—voices who know and understand how these important issues affect our own communities within Australia. I am sure that the Productivity Commission will take these issues into consideration in its current review and I look forward to the results of that.In Australia, we need a broadcasting sector which offers a diversity of views delivered by as many different voices as possible. As enjoyable as sport may be, cricket is not an issue of national importance. We are more interested in the crisis in Kosovo, despite what some people think, but only the ABC has proven that it is able to deliver what the community really wants, our own voice—and of course it was ABC Radio who brought us the cricket.In closing, I would just like to call on the minister to: (a) fund the ABC correctly—I do not think that will happen; (b) fund the ABC to convert to digital television—I do not think that will happen either; and (c) reopen the Cox Peninsula facilities. Maybe that might happen—I live in hope of that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And (d) resign.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—And (d) resign. That is charming. Thank you, Senator. I also wish to remind him that the broadcasting sector will only remain viable as long as diversity of ownership and plurality of content remain the key policy outcomes. At the moment, they are nowhere near it.16:39:003636Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—When this matter was in this chamber four years ago, Senator Ian Campbell did not complain then that it had been raised, and all 30 votes from the coalition that were used to carry that motion four years ago are still here in the coalition benches. But under the metamorphosis that we have seen they have all become mute. Political amnesia has settled on that side opposite. Who was the big mouth of 1995? It was not Senator Tierney—he may have been sincere about it—it was Senator Alston, and where is he today? He has sent the nightwatchman into bat for him. Now he has the bunny waiting to come into the order while he hides in the pavilion of the ministerial office. He does not want any Labor speakers to follow him and criticise him, because only yesterday, at question time, he said people do not front up. Where is he today? Surely he has not become the modern day jib of the Senate. Senator Alston made a lot of big statements back in 1995.The absolute indolence of this minister is just breathtaking to me. His pompous assertions will come back to haunt him. In 1995 he demanded that the Labor minister for communications intervene, no excuses accepted. It did not matter what the law said or what any of the proprietors said; it was Michael Lee's responsibility—and Michael Lee intervened and we all got to see the cricket. We all got to see it live; we got to see it absolutely direct. But the fact is that Senator Alston carries no weight with the networks, media proprietors or the ABC. If they want action, they go directly to the Prime Minister in the full knowledge that Senator Alston will roll over on any demands they put to the Prime Minister. It is a pity that Senator Alston cannot use his well-known skills of abuse, sarcasm and hyperbole for the good of cricket fans rather than just to bolster his fragile ego in this particular chamber. Surely the skills he learned as the bovver boy of the magistrates court could be put into trying to convince the networks to bring cricket into this country.Senator Bourne said this is not an important issue. The ABC and all these things are there for everyone, not just for the buffs of this and that. I remind you, Senator Bourne, the highest rating television show between 6.00 and 6.30 was the Adelaide Test—Channel 9 cancelled the news that night—with 42½ per cent ratings. The ABC would just dream about those sorts of ratings. They are the same sorts of ratings an AFL grand final gets. So it is an important issue.Senator Bourne mentioned the ABC. The ABC has consistently given preference to its breakfast programs rather than the cricket—3½ hours were lost one day, and I am listening to some drivel about fishing or something else. I accept that those breakfast shows, for their long-term rating viability, may not need to be interrupted, so why don't we take it to the parliamentary network and put it on there, like they do with the AFL football? Then we could all listen to it. But to listen to the Canberra breakfast show saying, `Australia is three for 80' a day ago—when the West Indies were batting—drives one to absolute distraction.Why won't the coalition come out on this thing? Why won't coalition backbenchers put pressure on in the party room or on the minister? Why are they so docile on these issues? It all goes back to the coalition's patronage system. They are terrified. They are too terrified to say anything. I have never seen a better form of democratic centralism than that which exists in the coalition, where decisions are made at the top and all the control goes down. This is the Ceaucescu syndrome! In the coalition party room, when the Prime Minister is applauded don't be the first person to stop clapping. Never do that! Just keep the rounds of applause going, otherwise you will never get promoted. So we have a whole bunch of wimps opposite—cricket fanatics all, genuine cricket fanatics on that side; I have spoken to many of them but I will not name them; they love their cricket—but they do not have the internal fortitude, the courage, to get up and demand what they demanded four years ago.We have often been accused of playing the politics of envy, but I will tell you who is envious at the moment, and that is those people who are not getting the direct coverage. The Prime Minister of Australia was asked the shortest question ever in question time in the House of Representatives today. He was asked: `Prime Minister, is Foxtel connected to Kirribilli House?' The Prime Minister answered, `Yes.' Then he sat down and said, `So what?' I will tell you so what, Mr Howard. Next Saturday morning when you get up and put on your slippers, and you have your honey and crumpets and your cup of tea, and you are watching the direct telecast from Antigua, most of the battlers that you purport to represent out in Penrith, Bayswater and Ipswich will be struggling to try to find a radio broadcast because they have gone over to some crackpot fishing show or some handyman program, and there is no cricket at all.Mr Howard will be sitting in the comfort of Kirribilli House thinking—not about the peasants and the piccaninnies out there—`Gee, this coverage is terrific.' But he will be doing nothing to help his fellow Australians to watch it. That is the real politics of envy. That is using your position of wealth and power to get a more privileged position in society than the rest of the Australian community, and that is to be condemned. It is one of the reasons why I fought so often in cabinet about what I saw as the future iniquities of pay television—that in fact it would create two classes of viewers in this country. I regret some of the decisions made then, but I note that this government has brought forward no legislation to change any of the rules that were established then.We have a situation where there is no free-to-air coverage, not even a highlights package. We have an ABC coverage that sometimes cuts out 3½ hours before play ends.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It cuts out at 1.18 a.m.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—And the transmission, as Senator Faulkner says, when we are listening at 1.18 a.m. suddenly cuts out for half an hour or so. This is absolutely pathetic. If this had just occurred in a vacuum, we still would have been critical of the government but it occurs against a background where senators Tierney, Ferguson, Crane and Alston made such a fuss about it in 1995 and demanded that we do something about it. Well, they did demand, and we did deliver. We now demand: you deliver. Otherwise, I think we should all move to Kirribilli next weekend. Where is the invitation, Mr Howard? Get the crumpets and the tea ready. We would like to watch the cricket. This is not a personal or a selfish point of view. We would like all Australians to have the opportunity to watch the cricket from Antigua next week, but this government will not do so. Senator Alston could not deliver a pizza. That is the reality of it.Let me end on a positive note. One good thing has come out of the coverage of the West Indies tour, and it has occurred in this test match alone. For the first time, I have heard a female doing the cricket broadcast, and that is Donna Simmons. I have rarely heard a better commentator of cricket than Donna. She is lucid, entertaining and accurate. Most people know that the great art in listening to cricket is to be able to visualise the game in your head. She has been absolutely superb. I think that is something that should be encouraged into the future.Congratulations are due to the West Indian broadcasters that have used her and the fact that the ABC has picked up the broadcast. Donna Simmons has given much to cricket lovers in this country. What a pity we cannot listen to the radio and watch television at the same time. We cannot do it because this government has failed miserably to deliver. So enjoy your weekend, John Howard. Enjoy watching the test cricket from Antigua. We all know that you really could not care less about all of the poor battlers out there who will have no opportunity to join in and enjoy what will be one of the greatest cricket telecasts in history.16:49:003638Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I see the opposition is continuing its time-honoured tradition over the last three years of staying totally off the main game.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You spoke in the same debate, you goose.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I know I did. Of course I spoke in the same debate, and I'm going to quote from that, Senator Ray, to point out exactly where you are wrong. We had Michael Lee, the Rip Van Winkle of communications policy, totally mucking up the West Indies test coverage at that stage.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Where is your gutless wonder?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Where is who?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Where is your gutless wonder?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Where is Alston?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Your gutless wonder. He is on the list.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Alston is the minister and, as is usual practice, the minister will take up the final statements on this matter and put into place the nonsense that you have come up with.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What a wimp!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Faulkner.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think the interjection of `gutless wonder' is unparliamentary.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Herron, where were you yesterday when Senator Alston tried to dish it out to some of us, saying that we never turned up et cetera? We are here; where is he?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, I think the interjection was inappropriate— 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It was made by me.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It was made by both of us.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Okay, both of you.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: if that was a point of order, it is almost unprecedented that a minister would be such a wimp that he could not come into the chamber to defend himself. I do not think `gutless' or `wonder' or `gutless wonder' is unparliamentary. I make the point that Senator Alston is on the speakers list to speak for 10 minutes in this debate and he has wimped it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, there is no point of order. But I would ask senators to conduct this debate in a sensible manner and not in the untoward manner that we have seen thus far with excessive interjections. There is a place for interjections, but I believe that we have had excessive interjections in this debate.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Mr Acting Deputy President, I thought you invited me to withdraw. If you have ruled that way, I do so.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Ray.10000Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I do not understand why you are getting so excited about this issue, particularly when you are totally wrong on the issue. I will point out where you are wrong in a minute. When I walked in on this debate initially, Senator Bourne was on her feet talking about various things in the ABC, so I asked the whip, `Have I walked into the wrong debate?' We were into a whole range of things about the ABC. I did not hear anything about antisiphoning. I did not hear anything about the cricket during that time. If I recall, Senator Bourne said she was not particularly interested in the issue, so I wonder why she got involved in the debate in the first place.But let us go back in history to what Senator Ray was referring to in 1995 and the antisiphoning debate at that time. We had Michael Lee as the minister for communications, the Rip Van Winkle of communications policy, who actually put us behind several years in communications—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I think that Rip Van Winkle probably in the real definition is also withdrawable, seeing we are having such a decorous debate today. I would not object to it normally, and certainly if it were applied to me I would not object at all.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, would you withdraw the reference to the former minister in those terms?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I withdraw and substitute that he was asleep at the wheel on communications policy, which put us behind years. It came out very well—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He got us the cricket.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—No, he did not, Senator.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He got us the cricket.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Let me quote from the Hansard . Your history is not very good.Opposition senators interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—We get the truth now, so obviously you do not want to hear it. Let me tell you the circumstances where it came in at the time of the antisiphoning laws which he was supposed to be overseeing but he was asleep at the wheel. I will quote from the Hansard of 2 March 1995. When we had this new dynamic market operating with pay TV and, because our minister at the time, Michael Lee, had not set up the antisiphoning regulations on time—Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray, you are not paying attention to what happened—Galaxy shot off with no regulatory regime in place.Senator Faulkner interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—What happened, Senator Faulkner, was that Galaxy bought up the rights before Michael Lee put in the antisiphoning rules.Opposition senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Opposition senators were heard in relative silence. I would ask that they extend the same courtesy to government senators. Senator Tierney.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Now that the rabble opposite have ceased, I will go through the story again. We had a regulatory regime on antisiphoning that was supposed to be put in place, but of course Michael Lee was too slow off the mark as usual and Galaxy had gone out and actually bought the rights to the pay TV for the West Indies test before the minister had the antisiphoning rules in place. That is why, Senator Faulkner, it did not go on to free to air: because your minister mucked it up at the time. I see that the rabble have now left—and rightly so—and they have missed the main point—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I put it to you that that language is totally unparliamentary and Senator Tierney should be asked to withdraw it.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Any person listening to the broadcast would understand that that was a rabble.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, I ask you to withdraw.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Let me return to the point that is so embarrassing the opposition at this time with respect to what they mucked up in 1995. The antisiphoning laws were not in place; therefore it was able to be put on Galaxy; therefore it did not go through to free to air. But finally Michael Lee got his act together. He got his legislation in place, and that is the legislation we are acting under at the moment. So the opposition have a hide to criticise us on that when they were the ones who brought in this legislation.And what does the legislation require people to do? First of all, it has to be offered to free to air. Under your legislation, the rules are that it has to be offered to free to air first and, if they do not want it, it then goes to places like the pay TV operators—Foxtel and the others. That is what happened with this test: because free to air did not take it up, pay TV took it up.That is the problem with your motion today. You do not realise why this situation has come about. You are saying the minister should intervene, but there is no role for the minister to intervene in this because of the way you set it up under your legislation. What are you suggesting the minister should do? Should the minister intervene every time something goes wrong on television and start redirecting particular programs? Are you seriously suggesting that the minister take that sort of role in a private enterprise system? What are you therefore implying? That we should be nationalising broadcasting? Perhaps you would like to see more of Lost in Space, Who's the Boss?, Get Smart, Twilight Zone perhaps, Mission Impossible, Back to the Future. That is the attitude of this opposition. I am absolutely amazed, when there are so many important issues in federal politics, that they bring up something like this when they are totally off the track. It is your original legislation. You did not put it in place properly. It is now operating. The minister is acting according to that legislation. The minister will take up more of these issues when he is speaking towards the end of the debate. I hope he was listening to the earlier comments. I do not quite know what Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray had for lunch, but to carry on in the way they did here earlier today is a total disgrace on an issue like this about which they really do not have a leg to stand on.16:59:003640Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The only reason I have come into the chamber is to highlight the total ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. Although I have not had a chance to hear what Senators Ray and Faulkner might have had to say, I doubt that they are much more enlightened than their current leader. For example, on the Neil Mitchell program recently on 3AW, Mr Beazley said:When we put in place the anti-siphoning laws our anticipation was that for Tests like this you would get a sufficient ability for the Minister to basically oblige its carriage of on free-to-air television.When there was a discussion in the parliament in 1994 about what is called the anti-hoarding approach, Labor was bemoaning the fact that carriers could acquire rights and then not utilise them. Indeed, you may remember that Michael Lee went and threatened Channel 10 with an investigation under control laws unless they agreed to carry the West Indies television: in other words, he blackmailed them—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You are a doormat for anybody.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Vermin like you do not have a right to comment—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order, Minister! I ask the minister to withdraw that comment.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I will withdraw it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Minister. Senator Bolkus, that does not help.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The fact is that in 1994 what Mr Lee had to say was this:No-one should be surprised by this list—the antisiphoning list—because as far back as 1991 the then Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Beazley, made the following statement: `Strict siphoning rules would ensure that important programs, including national and international sporting and cultural events, will continue to be available on free-to-air.'In other words, the current anti-siphoning rules were put in place by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who now has no idea what they were, because he said:Now something seems to have slipped on the way to the Forum, and this is now the average Australian cricket lover has been basically, is being deprived . . .In other words, Mr Beazley thinks at all times the minister had the power to direct, which is of course elevating him to being minister for propaganda.It is an appalling proposition. In other words, it is forcing commercial networks to broadcast material which they judge not to be commercially affordable and which may indeed not be attracting any significant degree of support in the wider community, simply because the minister himself wants to see it or else because he gets a few private representations. That is the ultimate in intervention in the marketplace.If the Labor Party seriously advances that proposition, we have a huge policy divide between us. You get up and complain whenever anyone says anything about the ABC; you say that it is illegal to intervene and how preposterous it is that we might even comment on programming, let alone make suggestions about it. Then, in the same breath, you have the Leader of the Opposition saying that the anti-siphoning laws were designed to give the minister the ability to basically oblige programs to be broadcast on free-to-air television.The ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition, the then minister who introduced this regime, is breathtaking. Does he believe that, or doesn't he? If he doesn't, he ought to apologise, recant and say that Labor policy is still as it was when these rules were introduced. Or, if he has made a fundamental policy change which you all support him on, then there is, as I say, a huge policy gulf between us. We are in favour of the current antisiphoning rules which require programs on the list to be firstly offered to the free-to-air networks. If they choose not to take up the offer, the material can then be made available to pay television and, indeed, can be delisted.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What a pathetic performance. You are pathetic!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please continue, Minister.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Oh! I thought you were appalled by Senator Bolkus's contribution—the usual sledging out of the side of the mouth. But nothing would surprise me about Senator Bolkus: they do not come any lower than him.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I raise a point of order. I did not say anything out of the side of my mouth. I said to Senator Alston that this is a most pathetic performance from a pathetic minister. There is no heart and no defence for himself at all. I resent the fact that he says that I slipped it out of the side of my mouth. It was full frontal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It is rather tragic that the case that has been made here is that the Leader of the Opposition simply does not know what laws he put in place back in 1991, or else he has made a fundamental policy change. Senator Bolkus does not even seem to want to address that issue, because there is no answer to it. Either the Leader of the Opposition says that he fundamentally misunderstands the current legislation or he is foreshadowing that the Labor Party, when in government, would give themselves the power to direct the commercial networks to run programs that the minister thought they should run. That is what he says. He says, `We thought that you would basically get a sufficient ability for the minister to oblige carriage on free-to-air television.' That is a huge call. I would be very surprised if Senator Bishop thought that that was the way to go, and I would be very surprised if the shadow minister thinks that is the way to go. There is a big opportunity here for them to spell out whether they now support this fundamental change of policy or whether the reality is that poor old Mr Beazley did not know what he was talking about.The fact is—and I do not know whether others have covered this ground—that all free-to-air broadcasters were given a reasonable opportunity to acquire live rights to televise the current test cricket series between Australia and the West Indies. In other words, we did precisely what your legislation required. The rights were offered to the broadcasters at the cost incurred by News Limited in acquiring those rights. The broadcasters declined the offer and the offer of a highlights package.We are of course disappointed—and I am particularly, as a cricket lover—but the fact is that there are something like 700,000 subscribers to Foxtel and Austar who can receive live coverage as a result of the decision that we took to delist the event. In other words, we did not condone what Labor used to condone—the hoarding and non-utilisation of the rights. There have been a number of instances when it has become clear that the free-to-air networks were not going to carry it. They were offered it and they refused. We have then moved very quickly and in sufficient time ahead of the event to delist it and enable pay television to run it without it being simultaneously covered on free-to-air.That is the sort of outcome you envisaged with your legislation. It was never suggested back in 1991 that there should be a ministerial power of intervention. If that is your current position, if you have fundamentally changed your policy, simply clarify it for us and we will know where the battle lines are drawn.Committees36423642364217:06:003642Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I present the fourth report of the Publications Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.3642364217:07:003642Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the fifth report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5 of 1999, dated 31 March, 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.3642364217:07:003642O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator MacGibbon, I present an interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Visit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999 .Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—On behalf of Senator MacGibbon, I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate his tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have great pleasure today in presenting the report of a visit to Port Moresby and Bougainville made by a delegation from the committee, from 15-18 March 1999.The report is an interim one, in the sense that the visit was conducted as an integral part of the committee's current inquiry into the Bougainville peace process, and foreshadows a later, full report to parliament. That report will include specific recommendations on the basis of the formal evidence which the committee is in the process of gathering.The report I present today describes the program of meetings, informal discussions and inspections which the delegation conducted during our recent visit. The report also outlines the delegation's observations, and presents some preliminary views and conclusions.Within the limitations imposed by time and distances, the delegation's program was a busy one. The delegation met with most of the key participants in the peace process, except for resistance leaders who, unfortunately, were not in Bougainville at the time of the visit. The delegation members had an invaluable opportunity to be exposed to a very broad range of perspectives, and we were able to see for ourselves the actual situation in Bougainville.Apart from the enormous human tragedies of the war in Bougainville, there has been an almost total destruction of the province's political, economic and social infrastructure. Restoration of basic communications, and reconstruction of health, education and other essential services, are huge tasks which will take many years, and will require considerable on-going external aid.The report comments on a number of Australian aid programs in Bougainville, and highlights some areas where additional assistance might be needed.From the visit, the delegation gained considerable insights into the problems being faced in advancing the peace process. While travelling around Bougainville, the delegates were able to observe at first hand some evidence of the destruction that has resulted from the war—for example, the rusting remains of destroyed buildings, abandoned or overgrown homes and plantations.Our meetings and discussions gave the delegation confidence that the peace process has almost universal support, and that the next phase will concentrate on determining the mechanisms for restoring civil administration.The delegation was pleased to note that since mid 1997 a great deal of progress has been made towards resolving the protracted conflict in Bougainville. Today, Bougainville is relatively calm, and although there have been isolated killings, there has been no major fighting for almost two years. The daily lives of Bougainvilleans are beginning to return to normal, and freedom of movement has considerably improved. However, there is only limited trading and other commercial activity in evidence, apart perhaps from a brisk trade in scrap materials. As elsewhere in Papua New Guinea there are law and order problems in some areas of Bougainville. After more than nine years of violence and armed conflict, the momentum for peace appears to be firmly on the agenda for the people of Bougainville and their leaders, despite occasional setbacks. There are very positive signs that the peace dividend is showing results in very practical ways, and that the peace process is continuing to move forward.In conjunction with other regional countries, Australia has made a major contribution to advancing the peace process—through political and diplomatic efforts; through Australia's very large aid program to Papua New Guinea; and through the work of the Peace Monitoring Group.Australia's pivotal role, in conjunction with other regional countries in encouraging the momentum for peace, is acknowledged. However, there is potential danger in becoming complacent about the progress towards peace. Continual vigilance is needed to maintain a focus on the desired outcome of enabling Bougainvilleans themselves, in partnership with the central government, to determine their own future. This outcome is in Australia's national interest as well.The delegation wishes to thank the Papua New Guinea government, in particular the speaker of the national parliament, the Hon John Pundari MP and senior government ministers, for extending the invitation to the delegation, for their courtesy and hospitality during the visit, and for the opportunities to exchange views freely. These thanks extend also to senior opposition members and to the Bougainvillean leaders and community groups. Their contribution to the discussions, and the frankness with which views were able to be exchanged, were very much appreciated by the delegates.The delegation wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Australian High Commissioner in Port Moresby, HE Mr David Irvine, and his staff for the assistance provided both before and during the visit. All the arrangements made for the busy program were excellent, and contributed significantly to the success of the visit. The delegation also expresses grateful thanks to the former commander of the PMG, Brigadier Bruce Osborne, ADF, who accompanied the delegation throughout the visit, and who provided valuable insights into the role of the PMG and its contribution to the peace process.The delegation travelled to and from PNG by means of regular RAAF supply flights undertaken by no. 37 Squadron. In every sense, these arrangements were excellent. The efforts of the flight crew were very much appreciated by all the members of the delegation.In Bougainville, the PMG provided air, sea and land transportation for the delegation, as well as detailed briefings and overall facilitation of the visit program. To the commander, Brigadier Roger Powell, and to all the PMG personnel, the delegation expresses its grateful thanks for their professionalism, enthusiasm and support during the recent visit.Finally, I would like to thank the delegation members for their assistance during and after the visit.Madam President, I commend the report to the Senate.17:09:003644Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade deals with the committee's short visit to Port Moresby and Bougainville between 15 and 18 March 1999. In due course, the committee will report further on the progress to a lasting peace, including future prospects for reconstruction and rehabilitation, and the way in which Australia can and will assist its nearest neighbour.As someone who had not previously had an opportunity to visit PNG, I was very chastened by the experience. It was not that the people we met were not friendly and encouraging but simply the fact that the PNG economy and the continuing structural problems within it make the future very challenging. PNG has suffered a severe drought, the costs and disruptions of Sandline, the fall-off in revenue from Bougainville Copper and social dislocation caused by the Bougainville civil war, which has gone on for 10 years. The discussions that the delegation had greatly assisted the delegation's understanding of the complex issues surrounding Bougainville's troubled path towards peace and the restoration of civilian authority.I would like to make some brief points and impressions of our visit. Firstly, there appears to be a grudging recognition from the PNG government that the peace process, with a level of Bougainville autonomy, will proceed to an election as planned in April. This peace process now appears to have a continuing life of its own. Secondly, the disarmament commitments by both sides will not proceed until the PNG Defence Force has withdrawn from Bougainville. However, I consider that this stumbling block is not in itself affecting the peace process. The use of weapons has been substantially reduced.Thirdly, the role of the peace monitoring group, or PMG, is outstanding. The Australian personnel on Bougainville are a credit to all of us. Fourthly, all the participants understand that Australia might prefer that Bougainville remain within PNG and have a large degree of autonomy therein but that, at the end of the day, it is up to the Bougainvilleans themselves to decide what their future is.Fifthly, our commitment to aid, promised by us, at over $100 million over five years will be used to help rebuild Bougainville and has already been used for Buka airport, the hospital, the Bishop Wade school and other things. Sixthly, the absence of any credible civilian administration in Bougainville is very disappointing and it is easy to understand that going it alone, so to speak, could only be an improvement for the Bougainvilleans themselves.There is a lot to say on the peace process itself and a lot has already been said, but simply it appears to me that a substantial amount of goodwill has been restored on Bougainville by all the participants. I am confident that, with the PMG in place, a commitment to aid and elections planned in April, we can have considerable confidence that Bougainville can have a brighter future. Australia has an important role to play in that and this interim report makes an important contribution to it.I commend the work of the chairman, Senator MacGibbon, for his personal commitment to the peace process and for his skills in and knowledge of PNG. Also, I thank the Australian High Commission, the Peace Monitoring Group for their hospitality, and the secretary of the delegation, who did a very good job.17:14:003644Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I know that time is short so I too will be brief in my comments. I start by saying something that my fellow members of the delegation probably got very sick of over the few days we were there—that is, I was in Bougainville earlier, in April 1994. When the delegation reported, I made three points at the beginning of my report. I believed at that time that three things were glaringly obvious on that visit to Bougainville in 1994: firstly, the tenacity and the courage of the people of Bougainville; secondly, their overwhelming desire to return to a normal life; and, thirdly, and probably most importantly, there could be no military solution to the crisis on Bougainville. I also said at the time that, as Australians, we are in many ways culpable for the problems of Bougainville and therefore we have to take much of the responsibility for finding a solution.I still believe that those are some of the most important things that I bring back from this current trip to Bougainville. The most obvious point was the tenacity and courage of the people of Bougainville, who are now getting their lives together. Bougainville is now a very different place from the Bougainville of 1994, I am very pleased to say. They still have an absolutely overwhelming desire to return to a normal life and they are doing so really well. Of course, there never was able to be any military solution to the crisis on Bougainville. There was not then, there was not in 1990 and there is not still. I think that that has now been accepted by all sides—I hope so.This time we spoke to a very large number of people and from more sides to the conflict than we had in 1994 because we were able to speak to leaders of the BRA. We were able to speak to Joseph Kabui and Sam Kauona, both of whom were very impressive. Also we spoke to the people who are now coming up in the BRA, people who are interested in the election process and mostly people who are interested in the peace process.I got a feeling of a very genuine commitment to peace on all sides while we were on Bougainville itself and a genuine commitment to making sure that this time the peace process works. It was a little less obvious when we were in Port Moresby, I think. The commitment there is wavering on some sides. I hope it has not disappeared altogether. I certainly hope that they will be able to carry out the process which is going along waveringly towards a proper government on Bougainville, towards resolving the problem themselves on whether Bougainvilleans want to be an autonomous part of Papua New Guinea or whether they want independence. I noticed that Mr Kabui said that they were looking at some time down the track to when they would want to make that final decision. They were looking at maybe five, maybe 10 or maybe 20 years. That is an enormous step forward for Bougainville.The other enormous step forward is that it has been agreed that that is still on the table. Bougainville is not a war zone any more—I can't even call it a tragic place any more. It is coming back and there is so much hope, mainly because of the presence on the island of the Peace Monitoring Group. Like Senator Sandy Macdonald, I would have to say that all Australians can be immensely proud of all our Australian personnel, both military and civilian, in the Peace Monitoring Group. We can be immensely proud of the leadership of that group—we are now up to the third Australian leader. All of them have done a superb job and continue to do a superb job, as is almost always the case when we send Australians overseas, from both the military and civilians.Bougainville has been transformed since I was there in 1994. While Australia was culpable, we have now done a great deal to try to improve things. I thank the Papua New Guinea government for allowing us to go wherever we wanted—that was a step that they were not terribly willing to take—and for allowing us to see whatever we wanted. I thank the members of the Peace Monitoring Group who took us around and looked after us. I thank all of the delegation's companions on the trip. In particular, Brigadier Bruce Osborn was immensely helpful. He had been the first commander of the Peace Monitoring Group and was able to tell us a great deal that we would not otherwise have known. Also several of the staff from the Australian High Commission to Papua New Guinea came around with us and others of their staff looked after us when we were in Port Moresby. All of them were immensely helpful.Mostly I would like to thank the Bougainvilleans. In 1994, the Bougainvilleans were spectacularly and immensely welcoming to the delegation and wanted to pour their hearts out and tell us where they wanted to go in the future. I think they have come a long way and I think they are moving towards their aim.I will finish off with something that struck me as indicative of the change. In 1994, we were welcomed with sing-sings, in particular in the middle of the island, which was then still pretty much a war zone. When we arrived, there was a sing-sing and a little boy was standing in the middle. He would have been about seven or eight. He was about the same age as one of my godsons. It struck me at the time as really tragic that this child was in the middle of a war zone. He could not get out; he was forced to be there; there was nothing he could do about it. We all had to leave him, his whole family and his community there.We had the same sort of experience when we arrived this time. There was another sing-sing at Arawa and it was so joyful. There were so many people in brightly coloured clothes. It was a really happy occasion. There was another little boy, about the same age, again right in the middle of the sing-sing. This time, of course, he was in a peaceful zone. He did not have to run away from anything, he did not have to hide from anything and that was because everybody now had a commitment to finding peace on the island. That is an enormous step forward. It is a spectacular and gigantic step forward. I sometimes wonder whether the political will can be maintained in Port Moresby, but even without it I am terribly hopeful—and I am very afraid that it may not be—that peace will come to Bougainville and the Bougainvilleans will well and truly be able to look after themselves.17:21:003646Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I would like to be associated with the remarks on the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Visit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999 . I will speak about a number of issues in the short time available to me. Firstly, I want to congratulate the leader of this delegation. Senator MacGibbon did an excellent job. He brought an eloquence and a diplomacy to it in a very difficult situation that I think is commendable and in the best traditions of this place. I learnt a lot on this trip and I think a lot of it is to do with the way in which this delegation was led and the way that it was planned by Cliff Lawson and other personnel from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.CX5MACDONALDSenator Sandy Macdonald—And the other members of the committee.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Senator Sandy Macdonald says, `and the other members of the committee'. We will leave that and the bedroom arrangements alone at this stage. If anyone wants to know, they can come and speak to me or to Senator Macdonald who I understand has dined out on some of these stories since. However, getting back to the seriousness of this particular delegation, we were there for a very short period of time. It is almost impossible for me to think now how we compressed everything into the four days from the time we arrived in Port Moresby until we came back to Townsville. I think we can be very proud of the Australian presence in Bougainville.The second point I want to make this afternoon concerns the complex nature of this problem. To give people here some idea, I asked one of the Peace Monitoring Group personnel up there what the extent of the carnage was during the 10-year conflict in Bougainville, and I was told that it was approximately 15,000. There were no exhumations of mass graves or anything like that, but the figures were considerable. When you consider that right now NATO is at war protecting—and, in my view, quite correctly protecting—the rights of Kosovars in a conflict where, at least until last week, only some 4,000 persons had been butchered by the same sorts of problems, then you get some idea of the scope of the Bougainvillean problem.It is complex for other reasons too. There are a number of factions on Bougainville; there are a number of groups on Bougainville; and there are a lot of people in Port Moresby who have ambitions for Bougainville and who would like to see Bougainville back within the PNG fold, with the mines operating again and churning out—as they did before this conflict—up to 40 per cent of the revenues for the government of that poor country. The problem is that all of these issues are not resolved.We have a very effective truce. We have two groups of Australians over there that, in the very short time available to me this afternoon, I want to commend. Firstly, we can be very proud of the Peace Monitoring Group, numbering some 300 or so personnel. They are soldiers—and this seems strange to say—without guns and without any military equipment other than Land Rovers, Land Cruisers and various other bits of gear. They are there to ensure that this peace works in a very difficult situation and in a country that has so many problems that this is only one of those problems. We were made well and truly aware of that in Port Moresby. The other group that I want to talk about is the AusAID group. We had the pleasure of visiting some of their projects, including the new hospital and the new Bishop Wade High School which caters for some 700 students that live in. For a population of 170,000 people, this is virtually the only high school in the whole of the province, with students ranging in age from 12 to 25. That particular building project has been well done. Australian aid is targeted and is delivering aid to those people up there. It is giving them a sense of hope. It will be educating the future elite for the great rebuilding job that is going to be necessary in Bougainville.I could talk longer about this visit this afternoon but I would be denying people the opportunity to speak on this and other motions. I will probably pick these issues up again in an adjournment speech in the near future. I wish to say that, after the four days we spent up there, I for one know that I have come back with information that I want to share with most of my fellow Australians about what a good job we are doing up there. It is not, in terms of the aid budget, an enormous amount of money. But I think it can be said that it is money extremely well spent and very effectively spent.17:26:003647MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—Members of the delegation from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade who visited Papua New Guinea have already spoken. I do not wish to cover any of the ground that they have already covered, beyond saying this was an important and a very complex visit by a parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. As the leader of the delegation, I would like to say that every member of the delegation performed superbly in what was genuinely a very difficult political environment—and not a very easy physical environment either. For those journalists who love to berate parliamentarians for taking luxury trips, this certainly was not a five-star safari through the swamps of Bougainville.I would quickly add my thanks to the Speaker of the Parliament of New Guinea; the ministers and officials in New Guinea; the Australian High Commissioner in Port Moresby and his staff; Brigadier Osborn; Brigadier Powell, the head of the Peace Monitoring Group; the RAAF; the secretariat and all those who made so great a contribution to the success of the trip.The reason why we went was to inquire into the Australian aid program in Bougainville, which is part of an inquiry being run by the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The war in Bougainville now, fortunately, is over but it really was a terrible war. It ran for nearly nine years; it cost some 10,000 to 15,000 lives; and it was associated with quite enormous property loss. The whole of the infrastructure of the country was destroyed—roads and bridges, homes and hospitals, electricity, water and phones. The copra and cocoa plantations were also neglected for 10 years and, above all, the Panguna mine—the richest copper mine in the world—was destroyed.The climate today is one of exhaustion with war and hostility. There is overwhelming universal support for peace and the residents of Bougainville wish to get back to a normal life. The real argument, the real problem, facing them today is the establishment as rapidly as possible of a Bougainvillean administration to get their lives back to normal. When we were in Port Moresby, we were quite impressed at being able to meet the government officials there. We met Mr Sam Akoitai, the Special Minister for State respon sible for Bougainvillean affairs, who enjoys the confidence, as we found, of all the parties in Bougainville as well as the undiluted support of the government in Port Moresby.The impact of the economic crisis on Port Moresby made itself quite apparent to us. The Asian economic collapse and the collapse of the Papua New Guinea export trade, particularly the failure of the timber trade—all of this is made worse today by yesterday's decision of the Sandline compensation, which will add another $40 million to a debt-ridden country—are all formidable problems for the PNG government. It is understandable therefore that Bougainville probably does not get as high a priority as it should in that environment.It does need to be said that the administration in Port Moresby is probably not as efficient as it might be and one of the reasons for that is the extent of corruption in the society there. A modern society is far too complex to be operated in a corrupt way because the effects of corruption are not restricted to enriching those who are corrupt. Corruption denies resources to the needy and thereby lowers the standard of living of the community. Ultimately, because corruption rejects the rule of law it deprives the community of its basic human rights.The other problem in Papua New Guinea is that the opposition are taking a very narrow and legalistic approach to the setting up of an interim administration in Bougainville on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Whether they are right or wrong is, in one sense, unimportant. What is important is that there be no prevarication or delay in setting up that administration and for that to occur there does need to be some compromise from all parties.The Australian aid program has been mentioned and I think we can all be very proud of that aid program. It is going to expend over $100 million over the next five years. It will be well focused. It will be very relevant to the needs of the community. Things have been done already. The sealing of the Buka airstrip provides an air head for aircraft of all sizes to fly into the area. The hospital replaces the one at Arawa which was said to be the finest hospital in the south-west Pacific but was destroyed through the war. The Australian hospital in Buka is a very fine and appropriate design for their needs. The high school at Talena, which has been mentioned, has a great place in a community where there are only 240 students entering the three high schools per year.The Peace Monitoring Group is doing a marvellous job there. They are really the cement that is holding the whole lot together. Their professionalism and their impartiality has earned the respect of all the groups.The Australian effort ought to be continually directed towards getting an administration in place to supply that aid program which is so well appreciated by the residents in Bougainville. It is fair to mention that there are some critics of the aid program. When you are providing aid you must provide it in one area—it cannot spread universally through the community in the initial phase—and those members of the community who do not see or who are not benefiting from the aid may feel negative. For example, when you put a hospital in one location, people 80 miles away may not see that hospital and may not feel that they have easy access to it. Then they feel that there is no benefit to them in the aid program. There are examples where Australian vehicles and boats have been destroyed or burnt by disaffected aid people.We came in for criticism that Australia was going to cut back its aid for Papua New Guinea to fund the East Timor programs. This was getting a lot of publicity, particularly in Port Moresby. There is no basis at all for that claim at present. The matter of Australian aid is constantly under review and if we do experience undue difficulties in delivering aid then it may be that changes have to take place in the future.But I come back to my initial point: the real imperative is to get some elected group in Bougainville administering the province in harmony with Port Moresby and to get life back to normal. I am very proud of the contribution Australia is making there. It really is the most effective aid program I have seen this country deliver.Question resolved in the affirmative.3649364917:33:003649Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the effect of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I congratulate the staff of the committee, particularly Ms Kelly Pearce, and seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On 10 March 1998 the Senate referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry "The effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities". The Committee was due to report by 1 June 1998. The Committee's inquiry was not concluded to the original schedule due to the calling of the August 1998 election.The Committee received 26 submissions and a number of supplementary submissions. During the inquiry, the Committee held three public hearings. Thirty witnesses gave evidence to the Committee at the hearings. The Committee also sought follow up information from selected witnesses in February this year.The Committee found that in general the Slot Management Scheme was accepted by most stakeholders and may be having a positive impact on arrival and departure times at KSA. However, while providing a good level of protection to regional airlines, it is still possible to lose regional slots or to transfer slots away from particular routes, leaving some communities without services.On the subject of landing charges, the Committee was concerned that the most vulnerable of the regional airlines, the small airlines operating off peak, despite a rebate, have suffered a rate increase in landing charges. Most other airlines have had a reduction in charges. This is a highly undesirable outcome and has serious implications for some regional airlines and communities. The impact on regional airlines and communities will require careful monitoring by those responsible for setting the policy and frameworks for charges at KSA.Access to KSA at an affordable rate is crucial to the health of regional and rural communities and their economies. It is essential that community and regional airline interests are represented and protected where increases in charges are proposed for KSA.The Committee found that seeking to exclude regional airlines from peak periods or from KSA entirely overlooks the complex nature of air transport in Australia and its connections to the economy. In addition to this neither Bankstown Airport (which is already the fifth busiest airport in the World) or a Second Sydney Airport are suitable alternatives to KSA for regional airlines and the communities they service. KSA is at the centre of a major transport network that links regional and rural communities not just to Sydney but to domestic and global markets. Discrimination against regional airlines at KSA is potentially damaging to regional and rural economies because of the need for:. interconnection to domestic and international flights,. timely and cost effective access to the Sydney CBD by business and those seeking medical attention.The additional costs of moving services away from KSA would cause undesirable flow-ons to local economies.Attached to this statement are the Committee's recommendations, which I recommend to the Government and to the Honourable Senators.Senator John WoodleyChairman, References Committee31 March 1999Recommendations. The Commonwealth closely monitor movements of slots within and out of the pool of slots "ring fenced" for regional airlines; including periodic examination of the reasons for movement and any evidence that the distribution of slots is being manipulated by operators to the detriment of services to regional communities. The Minister and Slot Manager should take steps to address any trend toward reduction in regional access to slots, particularly peak time and shoulder slots, at KSA.. The Commonwealth consider rural and regional community representation on the Sydney Airport Coordination Committee.. The Minister ensure that the impact of current price changes on regional and rural communities is assessed and taken into account when charges are set for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. Further, it recommends that the social costs and issues of economic growth and access to markets by rural and regional communities are assessed and taken into account in setting future charges for regional airlines.. The Ministers responsible take appropriate steps to ensure that Sydney Airports Corporation review the model used for depreciation, taking into account the ACCC comments and those of the industry.. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, along with Sydney Airports Corporation, examine the potential for dedicated regional runway and other infrastructure as an option for better serving regional communities and airlines and for increasing capacity at KSA.. The Minister ensure that negotiations undertaken with the airlines for price changes in 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 address the concerns raised by the airlines and the ACCC with regard to the accuracy of assumptions in the Corporation's pricing model, in particular those assumptions that may lead to high rates of return and high depreciation rates on the new investment resulting in unnecessarily large price increases.. The Minister also ensure that the most vulnerable parts of the industry, the regional airlines, are represented in negotiations and that their interests are not neglected due to size or scale of operations.. The Minister and Senate take note of the key nature of KSA in the economy of NSW and Australia. It is a major transport hub in a complex and interdependent air network that includes regional and rural Australia. It considers that any discussion of the future of KSA and Airports in the Sydney region should take this committee's findings into account to protect the interests of regional and rural Australia.Debate adjourned.3650365017:34:003650Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I present the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on the inquiry into the GST and A New Tax System together with the Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and supplementary material.Ordered that the report be printed.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. The chair of the committee is allocated eight minutes; three other speakers are allocated seven minutes each.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—With that understanding I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate the remainder of my tabling statement remarks in Hansard if my time expires.Leave granted.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—In what time I have I will commence by addressing the committee's terms of reference. The committee was directed to look at the impact of the GST on employment and wages and on the education sector. From the evidence presented in over 90 submissions that related to our terms of reference, and from 170 witnesses who appeared before us, the majority of the committee were left with the overwhelming impression that this was a tax reform that nobody wanted.To summarise briefly, we found evidence of likely disadvantage to a high proportion of the community as a result of the doctrinaire application of a tax system which contained more impositions than compensations, higher compliance costs overshadowing the promise of simpler accounting and probable distortion of the labour market in key areas.Senators will recall the negotiations leading to the reference of the new tax system bills to Senate committees last November. There was implacable opposition to this reference from the Treasurer, echoed more lamely, I might say, by some senators opposite. At least they understood precisely how the numbers plan out in this place. The Treasurer's line and that of senators opposite was to chant the mantra of the mandate, as though it gave them carte blanche to introduce the bills in the form they did and allowed them to resist all attempts at questioning the assumptions and details of Treasury analysis, upon which the new tax system is based.Treasury has a magic formula in its computer code called PRISMOD, which crunches numbers so sensitively and with such a high reliability factor that most of the information it churns out has to be kept secret. The committee learned this from what purported to be an answer to a question placed on notice to Treasury through DETYA by Senator Carr. Treasury informed Senator Carr that it had received a number of requests for information related to PRISMOD, but they were not going to tell us any more than what they had published in the ANTS document. I am sure they had good reasons for not providing this information. We all recall that Senator Kemp promised in the debate on this reference on 25 November last year that the government would cooperate with this inquiry, but I understand now that this was not to the extent of providing us with the information that we needed.Keeping up the information flow seemed to be the job of this side of the chamber. Indeed, it seemed to the committee that we were assisting the government to find out what the community really thinks about the GST—things they did not hear from their contacts in banking and finance. For what other reason were we, and other committees, shadowed by advisers to Minister Reith, in our case, and Dr Kemp—unless, of course, they were there to report indiscreet comments and questions from government senators. Senator Knowles's behaviour, for example, was reported right across the media. Despite Senator Kemp and his colleagues, this committee—and doubtless all of the committees working on the general inquiry—learned a very great deal about the apprehension that is felt in many quarters about the effects of the GST. Opposition senators are of the view that the government's ANTS package is marred by several major flaws. To begin with, the committee came to the view that introducing a GST will do nothing to assist in solving the problem of unemployment. The services sector has been the most significant contributor to employment growth in Australia over recent times. Yet, absurdly at a time of still high unemployment, the government is now proposing an onerous tax on this job creating sector. A great deal of evidence from a range of witnesses supports the view that the effect of the ANTS package on the job-rich service sector will be overwhelmingly negative. There is particular concern about the impact of the GST on tourism, which is currently a major and growing source of employment in regional Australia.The substitution of a GST for the wholesale sales tax system will result in significant overall increases in the costs of services, which will add up to an appreciable fall in the living standards of ordinary Australians, especially low income earners. The government claims that the inflationary effects of the GST will be more than offset by the compensatory elements of the ANTS package. Yet government officials now admit that the price effect of the GST will be far greater than the initial forecasts. We must all have strong doubts about the government's claims that there is fair and adequate compensation in the package. The promised income tax cuts will benefit mainly high income earners to any significant extent. They will be compensated for increased costs of ballet tickets and supper afterwards, but for low income earners the income tax cuts will go nowhere near providing full and adequate compensation for the introduction of the GST.The government would have us all believe that the ANTS proposals will bring a long-awaited quick fix to the tax system. To the contrary, the ANTS package opens a continuing political issue on compensation for low income earners and the unemployed, as well as other groups who gain nothing as an outcome of the package. The ANTS package will do nothing except shift the ground of the tax debate from the question of how best to reform the system to the issue of how best to compensate people for what were ultimately ineffective reforms.Opposition senators consider that the government should have placed more emphasis on making beneficial changes to the current tax system, such as a more determined effort to legislate against tax evasion. This would have been a far more convincing indication of the government's preparedness to tackle tax reform in an area that has aroused widespread public cynicism. Opposition senators have noted the concerns of the business community with great interest. Evidence to the committee has made it clear that while the business community supports taxation reform generally—many accepting a GST—they are not so supportive of tax reform as defined in the ANTS package.Industry groups heard by the committee expressed their concerns about issues such as high compliance costs, the heavy administrative burden, poorly targeted and inadequate compensation, and a reluctance to tackle genuine impediments to employment, such as payroll tax. Certainly the proposed tax package has been welcomed by the big end of town. Those businesses are best able to afford and absorb the compliance costs, and their corporate structures are geared for the requirements, but small business is not so well placed.I would like to close my remarks by emphasising the modelling that the committee did when we commissioned Professor Dixon. His model on the central effects of this package essentially highlighted that the whole issue was really a matter of a very high short-term employment risk for no long-term gain to the economy.Unfortunately, the remainder of my remarks deal with the implications of the package for education. I will incorporate those, but I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the committee secretariat for the solid, hard and professional work they did for all members of the committee.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Leave was granted earlier for the incorporation of those remarks.The remainder of the speech read as follows—The application of a GST to education also represents a tax on learning. The Government's refusal to zero-rate educational institutions indicates that given the choice between social benefit and ideological posturing, the Government has once again chosen to emphasise the latter. The result will be a quite unnecessary compliance burden placed on schools to the detriment of education programs. The changes proposed bear most heavily on those educational programs which draw heavily on community participation for support, and those least able to either absorb the costs or assume the additional responsibilities which will be needed to keep school and community education programs operating effectively.The proposed new tax on learning should be seen in the context of several years of serious decline in government funding of the education sector. The education community has been under siege since 1996, with program cuts aimed at re-orienting all segments of the education sector—schools, TAFE colleges and universities—toward greater reliance on corporate finance sources. The result of a GST on top of these developments will be a decline in participation rates in adult and community education and subsequent decline in the incidence of older and less well-educated people entering the workforce.Opposition senators agree that the tax system need changing. This does not mean that we have to introduce a GST. When the Government speaks of `tax reform' we see it as a euphemism for the introduction of an unfair and highly regressive new tax such as a GST. Tax reform refers to a process through which the tax system is made genuinely fairer for ordinary Australians, not just high-income earners. Nor is it possible for Parliament or the community to see the application of a GST in the context of other tax measures, which may be in the mind of the Government. This is a deficiency in the policy of incremental tax reform.The ANTS package will not deliver a fairer tax system. Contrary to the claims of the Government, it will do nothing to fix the problems of inefficiency and complexity in the existing system. It will do nothing to encourage job-creation in the economy. It will do nothing to improve the perceptions of inequity and unfairness that exist about the current system. That is why Opposition senators have recommended that the bill not be passed.17:43:003652Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will start where the chair of our committee left off, and I also endorse her thanks to the committee secretariat: to Mathew Stephenson, John Carter, Jan Willis and Anne Domitrovic. The Democrats felt the program of hearings was exceptionally well organised, and we certainly appreciated the patience of the secretariat in dealing with last minute changes to the report.The report of this committee highlights and reinforces a number of serious concerns that the Australian Democrats have had about the government's tax reform package, and Senator Collins has already referred to some of those concerns. There were two central themes which became clear as we conducted our hearings throughout the nation. The first was in relation to employment. We do not believe that the government has proven its claims that the GST will actually create jobs. In fact, in a number of industries we found that the reverse is true. The Democrats' supplementary report recommends a number of specific measures to improve the impact of the package on employment. These are in the areas of housing, tourism, payroll tax and the zero rating of food.The second theme was in relation to education, and I will elaborate on some of those points. It became clear as the committee progressed, both from written submissions and from the verbal presentations to the committee hearings, that the government's promise, the government's claim, the government's guarantee that education would be GST free was not the case. In fact, the government is fooling itself and trying to fool a number of Australians when it says that education is somehow GST free. Adult and community education courses which do not lead to a formal qualification will be taxed. The committee heard considerable evidence that these courses are the very courses which provide a second chance at education for people who perhaps have had bad experiences in formal education—say, at a primary or secondary level—or people who have been disadvantaged and have not had the opportunities to engage in the education sector for whatever reason.We heard much evidence which supported the fact that the majority of people undertaking this type of adult and community education are women. The Australian Democrats do not support taxing these courses. In fact, we should be doing the opposite. We should be doing our best to encourage people to undertake this type of education, acknowledging that it is an important pathway to even further education and training for those groups to which I referred.In its present form, the tax proposal will apply a GST to books. Clearly, books are an essential part of obtaining an education and are considered the very basis for obtaining literacy and numeracy skills—something that the government has highlighted as a particular goal, an objective, an area that they wish to pursue and to ensure that Australians have access to numeracy and literacy courses. However, we know that this will be a clear disincentive—psychologically and financially—for a number of people to obtain an education and those very basic skills.Given the government's exclamations and promises in relation to literacy in education, it astounds me that any government, let alone this government, would consider placing a tax on books. Taxing books equates to taxing knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge. The revenue which would be forgone as a result of zero-rating books is almost insignificant when compared with the benefits that Australians can derive from improved literacy and learning.The activities of parents and citizens organisations is another issue upon which the committee received substantial evidence. A major purpose of these organisations is raising funds so that schools can afford additional resources. Quite often those funds supplement the less than adequate funding provided by the state government—or, indeed, the federal government, as I am sure Senator Lynn Allison, our schools spokesperson, would be happy to elaborate on for the Senate, and has done so on many occasions. A tax on P&Cs as a matter of course will lead to a reduction in school resources. To suggest that education will be GST free completely ignores the taxing of adult and community education and the effects of taxes on books and P&Cs.Putting aside for the moment the failure on the part of the government to meet its commitment that education would somehow be GST free, an issue that nearly every education related witness mentioned was the compliance burden. The government senators on the committee were at pains to point out on an inordinate number of occasions that the government has allocated $500 million to compliance and that schools would get a portion of that funding, while throughout the course of the inquiry it became patently clear that $500 million will not be nearly enough. I note that one honourable senator on the committee kept referring to that as the `magic pudding'. Indeed, many witnesses expressed concern that they did not know much about that package or that they had been given assurances that they would have access to that package. The number of people who needed to benefit from that money for a range of reasons—compliance, administrative, educational, or what have you—far exceeded that amount of money that has been allocated by government.It was estimated by one witness that the GST compliance cost at an average school would amount to the equivalent of one administrative staff salary. This means that resources will be drawn from teaching activities to fund administration. In an environment where schools are already underresourced, the Democrats find that simply unacceptable. The Australian Democrats believe that at least $200 million more needs to be allocated to assisting schools with the cost of complying with a GST regime—a minimum of $200 million.The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee has identified a number of problem areas within the government's tax reform proposals, and we have recommended a number of measures in an attempt to avoid those problems and improve the package. We look forward to the government's response to those issues raised but, at this stage, the package which we have previously described as unsustainable, unacceptable and unfair remains so while these various burdens on education, employment and training remain.17:50:003654Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Synon and the government, and to save time because we have other important matters to deal with, I seek leave to incorporate Senator Synon's speech on this matter.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Today I am pleased to present the Government Senator's report for the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Senate References Committee. This Committee held twelve public hearings; one hearing in each of Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Hobart and Melbourne; two in Sydney and three in Canberra. The Committee has heard many hours of evidence from a large cross section of interested parties, and has spent hundreds of hours in preparation. Most recently, we have heard from Professor Dixon of Monash University who presented further research on the employment effects of the Government's tax package for Australians.As a result of this evidence, I can report to the Senate that, in the area of employment, the Government's tax reforms will be undeniably good for jobs. As recently as last Thursday this was again confirmed by Professor Dixon, the ALP's hand-picked modeller, who predicted that for his central case scenario "employment will be stimulated in the short-run by about 30 000 jobs".Naturally, this jobs prediction did not sit well with the ALP's predetermined agenda and they asked Professor Dixon to model the government's package with sets of assumptions chosen to allow them to pick the results that they did want. These wish lists are outlined in the Terms of Reference to the Select Committee and were also partially adopted in Dixon's report to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee. It was very much a case of `choosing the method to get the answer they wanted.'The unrealistic assumptions that Professor Dixon was asked to model revolved around the ludicrous idea that workers would negotiate pay rises on pre-tax income after the introduction of the Government's tax package. By advocating this position, one would be forced to defend the idea that every single worker and every single employer would utterly ignore the increases in real disposable income that will result for all income groups in Australia. One would also be trying to defend the assertion that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission would also completely ignore these increases in real disposable income to allow this wage blow-out to materialise. I repeat: every worker, every employer, the AIRC and the Government would have to demand wage claims that are completely unrelated to productivity increases and utterly ignore real increases in after tax income. These are the assumptions that the ALP asked to be simulated.Answering a question from my colleague, Senator Ferris, Professor Dixon himself stated about this scenario:"I do not want to defend the blow-out scenario strongly. I have never said that that was the more likely thing."On this issue, we find ourselves in agreement with Professor Dixon. Positively, there were many witnesses who recognised the urgent need for comprehensive tax reform. An example of this was from the small business group NARGA, the National Association of Retail Grocers Australia, who said:". . . we are so badly hurt by the current sales tax regime that we are prepared to look at the GST and give it broad acceptance, provided it is introduced in a way that is simple to administer."Evidence like this frustrated Labor, whose preferred witnesses were the trade unions. Perhaps the most acute example of this that the Senate Committee witnessed revolved around a submission by the Australian Education Union that predicted many dire consequences for parents with school-children. This submission was presented in the Committee's first public hearing in Canberra and was subsequently cited, by Labor Senators, as though it were a holy text. However, this document was subsequently analysed and described by Mr Robert Horne from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs as "seriously flawed."As stated in Tax Reform; Not A New Tax A New Tax System , costs to the education sector are expected to fall by around $240 million as a result of the government's tax reform package.The Government Senator's views have been confirmed by the evidence heard by this Committee that the Government's tax package will undoubtably lead to improvements in incentives to employ and be employed. The modelling evidence to this Committee and other Committees overwhelmingly support the Government's view that the tax package will substantially increase employment. The Monash model says 30,000 jobs, the Melbourne Institute say 50,000 jobs and Access Economics say 190,000 jobs.This package is good for jobs, it is good for education and it is good for small business. I strongly recommend that, in the interest of Australia's future, the ALP put aside their obstructionist and desperate behaviour designed to justify their negative, unconstructive no-policy-ideas agenda and pass the Government's Tax Reform Package without delay.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3655UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I present details of travelling allowance payments made to senators and certain members of the Department of the Senate during the period January to June 1998.Documents36553655365510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 34 of 1998, entitled Performance Audit: Fringe benefits tax—Australian Taxation Office .Miscellaneous365517:51:003655Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I present details of travelling allowance payments made to parliamentarians by the Department of Finance and Administration during the period January to June 1998, together with a statement relating to the document.Committees36553655365510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking a variation in the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Crowley be appointed a participating member of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee.Business36553655Motion (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 a matter to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till after consideration of business of the Senate notices of motion nos 2 and 3. Miscellaneous365617:53:003656Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998, made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, be disallowed.In moving this disallowance motion, I will start by going to some of the history involved in this particular issue. The amendment which is the subject of this disallowance motion today is the result of a process set in motion following the 1996 round of ATSIC regional council and zone elections. The minister, in accordance with section 141 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act, convened a review panel on 3 March 1997 to review the ATSIC zone, regional and ward boundaries. The review panel, under the requirements of the act, comprised the ATSIC chair, Mr Djerkurra, a representative each from the Australian Electoral Commission and the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group, and two independent indigenous people—Associate Professor Eleanor Bourke of the University of South Australia and Ms Evelyn Scott, who is now the chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.The review panel subsequently made recommendations to introduce wards in the regions that were not currently divided. Its separate report on boundaries included draft boundary recommendations for nine out of the 10 regions not already divided into wards. There were a number of objections to the review panel recommendations and they were in fact lodged by or on behalf of regional councils in some seven of the nine cases where wards were to be introduced. In the Roma region in Queensland, the regional council and the local land council lodged two objections of identical substance. In the two cases where no objections were made—that is, the Sydney and Perth regions—the minister was required to give effect to the recommendations by tabling them in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. I do not know what happened there, but the minister tabled the rules amendment containing these two recommendations on the 16th sitting day, so of course they did not have effect.As a result of the objections to the wards in seven regions, an augmented review panel comprising the membership of the original panel plus two more indigenous people, Mr Kerry Blackman and Mr Charles Coleman, was appointed by the minister. That panel substantially upheld the recommendations of the original review panel that wards should be introduced into all seven regions, and the minister was then required to give effect to those recommendations. The minister subsequently amended the regional council election rules to include these recommendations and tabled the amendments in both houses on 10 November 1998. The original two cases where objections were not lodged were included in the disputed recommendations because, as I have said, they had not been tabled in time, thus they ceased to have effect.Notice of the disallowance motion was given by the opposition, by me, subsequent to representations from concerned ATSIC commissioners and regional councillors—those who were opposed to the recommendations of the review panels. It has to be put on the record that there were objections and concerns ranging across many reasons. The objections lodged with the review panels opposing the division of regional councils into wards were quite varied. There was concern, for instance, that the recommendations did not take account of the traditional Aboriginal relationships within the regions, that they were culturally inappropriate and that they did not reflect the full range of community opinion. Several of the objections opposed the specific boundaries of wards proposed by the review panels. Traditional boundaries had been largely ignored by the ward boundaries. There were also other objections related to the problems that the introduction of wards would place on councillors who had been transferred out of their proposed ward but were still within their region, for example, for employment purposes. In those cases, they would have to resign as councillors.There were also further concerns contained in the objections that the introduction of the wards would divide councillors into ward `blocks', causing conflict over the division of resources within a particular region. It has to be said that there is a widely held belief that regional councils should reflect regional views, as is achieved by councillors being elected across a region rather than those being elected, as is proposed, to represent only a ward.There has been some controversy about the position of ATSIC. When presented with the outcome of the review panel process, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of the board of ATSIC, the peak representative body of indigenous Australians, opposed the recommendations of the review panels and that they in fact supported the objections lodged by the regional councils and local land councils. This position was reflected quite strongly towards the end of 1998 in the commission's decision No. 2160, after which the chairman, Mr Djerkurra, wrote to the minister expressing the board's opposition and extending an invitation to the minister to meet with a delegation of commissioners if necessary.Mr Djerkurra subsequently wrote to the minister on 13 November 1998, expressing the board of commissioners' objections. I understand that in such correspondence Mr Djerkurra stated quite succinctly:Commissioners firmly believe that the impact of having a system of wards within certain regions can be to encourage division within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community within those regions, and to foster a narrow, localised approach to decision making. Commissioners further believe that the introduction of multiple wards can act against the interests of minority groups within particular regions, making it harder for them to gain representation on Regional Councils.Mr Djerkurra went on to give examples of the effect that the introduction of multiple wards would have in the Cairns region—a region of immediate concern in this debate—making it more difficult for Torres Strait Islanders, for instance, within that region to gain representation on the Cairns and District Regional Council. Mr Djerkurra pointed out:Commissioners are also concerned that there has been insufficient attention given to traditional relationships between communities in certain regions in determining ward boundaries. As a result, many community members will be prevented from voting for representatives from their own "country", often because they have been forced to relocate away from their "country" by previous acts of State/Territory and Federal Governments.So the board's concerns largely reflected those of the regional and land councils, all of whom continue to maintain a close grassroots association with their indigenous constituents.The objections that were lodged with the review panels and the concerns of the board of commissioners must, I believe, be considered to be a reflection of indigenous Australians' sentiments on the matter. Gatjil Djerrkura himself alluded to the importance of giving due consideration to the objections to the recommendations of the review panels lodged by legitimately elected indigenous representatives in the report of the augmented review panel. As regional councils lodged nine of the total 13 objections, Gatjil Djerrkura noted in the report that he:. . . was particularly concerned that due regard should be had to the views put forward by Regional Councils, their Chairpersons and Commissioners, as they have a duty to advocate for the best interests of their constituents and to reflect the community view on issues of importance.Gatjil Djerrkura further expressed the view in his report that `in cases where the elected representatives indicated that they were expressing the majority view within the community, it would be right to accept that view'.So we in the Senate are now confronted with a situation where it is indigenous people's view that this amendment will have the effect that they do not want. They want us to take into account the fact that they have enormous concerns about the amendments to the ATSIC regulations. As I say, we cannot underestimate the importance of those views from indigenous Australia, expressed by ATSIC and expressed also by regional councils. As recently as last week, a meeting of the Goolburri Land Council in Toowoomba, attended by some 530 of its members, substantially re-elected the previous land council board and voted down a proposal to introduce a ward system. We have a quite solid view expressed to us from indigenous Australia saying that they do not want the wards as suggested.It is important to note in this debate that the opposition has always recognised that the minister has no discretion as to whether or not to give effect to the recommendations of the review panels. Under the act, the minister is obliged to give effect to those recommendations, regardless of his personal view. Despite the minister's accusations in his press release of 14 January this year, the opposition does understand and did understand that the minister must implement the recommendations of the panels. We have never sought to misrepresent the minister's views in respect to this. We accept that his responsibility is outside any discretionary power.We do, however, take issue with the minister on the part that he played in misrepresenting the views of the board of commissioners concerning the review of ATSIC electoral boundaries when the issue gained significant media attention in January this year. In that same press release of 14 January that I mentioned earlier, the minister implied that the chair of the commission, Mr Djerrkura, had changed his position on the electoral review process since sitting on the panel. He accused Gatjil Djerrkura and Commissioner Ray Robinson, the deputy chair of the commission, together with Daryl Melham, the opposition spokesperson on those matters, of not understanding the act. I think that was an unfair assertion, and the facts do not support such an assertion. To the contrary, it is quite important and informative for the Senate to note that during Senate estimates earlier this year the minister himself was asked if he had read the report of the augmented review panel. The minister replied that he had. He said that he had read it both subsequently and before he put out his press release. But if the minister had read that report, he would have noted that on page 3 of the report Mr Djerrkura specifically asked that his support for certain objections be noted. In fact, the report reads:Mr Djerrkura's personal view was to accept the objections lodged against the proposals to introduce wards in Geraldton, Roma and Cairns Regions. This was on the basis of acceptance that the views expressed by the elected representatives in those areas should be regarded as reflecting the majority view of community members affected by the proposals.Gatjil Djerrkura, on page 3 of the augmented review panel report, made his position clear. He clearly illustrated his disagreement with the rest of the panel, for all who may have read that report to see. In that respect, the minister, who states he read the report, should have been able to note Mr Djerrkura's concern. In effect, the panel had overruled Mr Djerrkura's position. If the minister had read the report, he would not have gone on to misrepresent Mr Djerrkura's position. He would not have gone on to state in his press statement of 14 January that he was surprised at the calls by Gatjil Djerrkura and his deputy, Sugar Ray Robinson, for the government to reject recommendations to introduce a ward system.The story does not end there. The deception of the minister extends even further. Not only did Mr Djerrkura express his objections to the introduction of wards in that report but also he actually had written to the minister some two months before the press statement. He wrote to the minister on 13 November 1998 expressing the opposition to the introduction of wards of the board of commissioners, a board of which Mr Djerrkura is a member and an appointee of the minister. So the minister said in estimates committee hearings that he had read the report beforehand, the minister received correspondence two months before the press statement, but it did not stop the minister from misrepresenting Mr Djerrkura's position. Minister, I have got to say that, in terms of defences and excuses, yours go down in history, I reckon. When you were asked about the accuracy of your press release, your only excuse was:It all happens pretty quick in this game. Within seconds of it hitting the fan I have to respond.Things do happen very quickly in this game for all of us. That is why we try to read, prepare and be accurate in what we present to the public and to the Senate. So you should not have been expressing surprise at Mr Djerrkura's position, Minister. You should have known that position; it had already been put to you.I will not go on for much longer, other than to state that this is an issue which has raised a lot of interest in ATSIC and indigenous Australia. Because of the concerns mentioned earlier, indigenous Australians have a real concern about this ward proposal being accepted by the parliament. As I said earlier, this disallowance motion has the overwhelming support of the majority of the ATSIC board and has the overwhelming support of indigenous communities who would be affected most by the amendment's provisions. As I cited earlier, the Goolburri Land Council in Toowoomba had some 530 of its members attending a public meeting on the Saturday before last, substantially re-electing the previous board and voting down the proposal that had been put before them to introduce wards. Given the clear voice of indigenous Australians and given the implications some of these ward divisions would have, I urge senators to basically reflect the aspirations and the will of indigenous Australians by voting for the disallowance motion which I introduced this afternoon.18:07:003659Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I wish to state at the outset that the rules Labor is seeking to disallow today have not come from the government, and Senator Bolkus has mentioned that. They are the result of an independent process involving indigenous Australians and they stem directly from amendments to electoral rules brought forward under the previous Labor government. Labor's position today is totally indefensible. I would urge the Democrats, the Greens and Senator Harradine to listen carefully to what I have to say and to consider the facts before deciding how they will vote on this issue, and I am happy to respond to the charge that Senator Bolkus has just made in relation to this matter.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998 which we are considering today provide for the introduction of multiple wards into a number of ATSIC regions. The motion to disallow these amendments—as I have stated—is misguided. It is obvious from Senator Bolkus's contribution that it is based on misinformation, and I do not blame him for that. To make an informed decision on the implementation of these amendments it is essential to understand the purpose behind them and the purpose which gave rise to them. This will clearly indicate that the rules before us were drafted in accordance with the law and in accordance with the wishes of the ATSIC electorate. These wishes were made clear in comprehensive public consultations.The ATSIC Act requires that, after each ATSIC election, there is an independent review of its electoral processes and boundaries. The review of the 1996 election found that communities in regions not already divided into wards were potentially disadvantaged. The demographics of the region could mean that the interests of some groups were not represented on the regional council and, in the interests of a more equitable representation, the independent review recommended the introduction of wards into nine more regions. For those unaware of the fact, the ward system already applies in 25 of the 35 ATSIC regions for the very purpose of providing fairer representation. Senator Bolkus did not mention that. They already exist, so the principle is well established in 25 of the 35 ATSIC regions.Let us deal with the process. We can have every confidence in the expertise of the review panel, which included the Chairman of ATSIC, the Electoral Commission and the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group. The review panel were ex officio Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC; Mr Kerry Heisner, the Australian electoral officer nominated by the Australian Electoral Commissioner to represent the commission; and Mr Doug White, Manager of the Public Interest Mapping Program of the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group, nominated by the General Manager of the group to represent the organisation. My ministerial appointees were Ms Evelyn Scott, who is Chairperson of the Cairns and District Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation of Women and is now Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, and Associate Professor Eleanor Bourke, Director of the Aboriginal Centre of Excellence, University of South Australia. I do not think anybody could disagree with the quality of that panel.This panel did not reach its conclusions in isolation. It consulted widely with the ATSIC electorate in reaching its determinations, and the results of its consultations are reflected in those determinations. That was only the first part of the process. The review panel published its conclusions and there was an opportunity for public comment and objections. Following the 1996 report there were indeed some objections to the introduction of multiple wards in some regions. Because of those objections, the next step in the required process was undertaken—and I have no discretion in this, it is required to be done—and two additional members were required to be brought onto the panel and another round of public consultations was conducted. The two additional appointments that I made were Mr Charles Coleman, who is a member of the Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board, and Mr Kerry Blackman, a member of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. So the augmented panel obviously had a majority of Aboriginal people on it.This augmented panel made some variations to boundaries but largely confirmed the original findings. Its recommendations were incorporated into draft regulations under the ATSIC Act which I approved. It is important to note that I take no part in determining the content of the regulations. By law I must give effect to the augmented review panel's decisions on wards. I have no discretion to vary its recommendations, and I agree with that. It is those recommendations made by the independent augmented review panel, the expertise of which is beyond question, which are embodied in the rules now before us.I think the confusion that arose in relation to the different accounts that Senator Bolkus gave was that, on the one hand, Mr Djerrkura signed off on both the review panel and the augmented review panel but, on the other, did not put in a dissenting report. But, as Senator Bolkus quite rightly said, in the minutes of the meeting he voiced his dissent in the original review panel. I do not know how many meetings he actually attended, but he did in that instance review that but did not sign a dissenting report. He signed off on both the original report and the review panel.I would like to recount briefly some ATSIC electoral history that bears on this issue. The first electoral review was conducted after the 1993 ATSIC elections. That review received no objections—none whatsoever—to the ward system which was already operating in 23 of the 35 regions. It did receive representations to extend the ward system into three more regions prior to the 1996 elections. An amendment to the ATSIC Act reduced the size of regional councils. Where there had been between 10 and 20 members, depending on population, there would now be between eight and 12.This gave rise to concern that through that amendment some community groups would find themselves unrepresented. Therefore an amendment was made to the ATSIC Act to require the electoral review panel to look specifically at ways to accommodate the interests of distinct groups. As we now know, the review panel examining the 1996 election recommended more wards as a way of addressing this issue. That was the principle that was espoused. It was accepted by both the review panel and the augmented review panel, and—as I have mentioned—I have no discretion in that in bringing it to the Senate. As I have mentioned, I know that the ATSIC chairman is opposed to the introduction of wards in some regions. His views were set out in the report of the augmented review panel. I should point out that most of the objections to the introduction of new wards came from regional councils.The chairman maintains that if regional councillors indicate that they are reflecting a majority view of the community then we should accept that. I find this perhaps a little naive. Firstly, there is a very low turnout for ATSIC elections—around 25 per cent of eligible voters. So there is no guarantee that councillors are expressing a majority view. Secondly, it would be hard to guarantee that councillors had entirely laid aside any self-interest in their submissions to the review. It would be natural for them to take that into account. In fact, if we follow the chairman's argument to its logical conclusion, we would not bother with the review and its attendant public consultation, we would merely ask the regional councils for their views. I do not think Senator Bolkus has reflected that in his interpretation.It would be like allowing the members of the House of Representatives to draw their own electoral boundaries. That is what it is. It was Senator Bolkus who put forward the proposition that we should just follow what the regional councils have told us. So that is the analogy: we would be asking them to determine their own boundaries and electoral rules. The Labor Party brought forward this ATSIC legislation to have a review panel and then an augmented review panel.The problems with the ATSIC elected arm's views are illustrated disturbingly in the augmented review's account of its meeting in the very region that Senator Bolkus referred to, the Goolburri region. The panel was moved to note that the zone commissioner made strong representations to have a particular public meeting cancelled. The panel also noted that meetings in this region were characterised by aggressive and intimidating behaviour by some participants and that the panel was subject to personal abuse and insults by members of the regional council. That is in the minutes. We cannot in the circumstances therefore share the chairman's confidence as to the impartiality of the regional councillors.There is another important point in relation to these amendments that is very important in our consideration today. The amendments include the introduction of the ward system into four regions. No objections were lodged to the proposal for a ward system in those four regions. Indeed, there is clear evidence of strong community support for the new arrangements in these regions. If these amendments are disallowed, these regions will not get the changes that they want to better reflect the composition of their community. Obviously, the desire of four regions to have a ward system introduced has been totally disregarded in Senator Bolkus's statement.These amendments were drafted in accordance with legislation. ATSIC electoral rules and boundaries have been reviewed and amended over the years, beginning in 1993, to accommodate the emerging needs of the indigenous community. These amendments reflect the findings of the latest review. The review and the subsequent augmented review involved wide and comprehensive public consultation. The government has had no influence on the process and I, as minister, must give effect to the review panel's deliberations. We cannot guarantee that views put forward by ATSIC regional councillors are entirely free of self-interest. It may well be that some stand to lose at the next election because of the introduction of the ward system.There are regions which unequivocally support the introduction of wards which will miss out if the amendments are disallowed. As I said at the outset, I believe the motion to disallow these rules is misguided and not based on a proper understanding of the process, of the legislation governing it or of my role. I urge the Senate to allow these rules to be implemented in line with the law and the wishes of the wider indigenous community.18:19:003661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This disallowance motion relates to the introduction of a ward system for elections to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The commission is the elected representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As such, it is of utmost importance that the system for the conduct of ATSIC elections be the best possible, the fairest possible and the most culturally appropriate.I do not know if the current electoral system for ATSIC meets those criteria but I am in no doubt that the changes proposed by the government will not help. In fact, they have the potential to do great harm. They have been the subject of considerable debate both within and outside the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.The ATSIC board of commissioners, which should be the minister's primary source of advice on this issue, has serious concerns about the proposed introduction of the ward system under the amended rules. Those concerns have been conveyed to the minister, and I am very concerned that he has chosen to ignore them on this occasion.The chair of ATSIC, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, pointed out in a letter to the minister in November last year that the board maintained strong objections to the introduction of wards where significant community opposition existed. The minister said that no objections were lodged, and all I have to say to that is that there has been a raft of attacks on the various rights, the lifestyle, the environment, the culture and so on of Aboriginal people. As if these people do not have enough to do and as if they have the resources to be involved in paper warfare. I find it rather annoying that the only way an objection could be considered real is if they had lodged it in writing to the minister.The commissioners firmly believe that the impact of having a system of wards within these regions will encourage division within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and I agree with them. The question is whether this was the intention of the minister. You do not need to be cynical to think that that might possibly be the case; you only have to look at the history of the government on any aspect of Aboriginal affairs that has come before the parliament in recent times.ATSIC commissioners have also told the minister that the introduction of multiple wards can act against the interests of minority groups within particular regions, making it harder for them to gain representation on regional councils. Again, I agree with them. It is a bit like the debate we were having yesterday. The fact that this change has been pushed onto some regions does not mean that it makes it fair to push it onto others. By way of example, I draw attention to the implications of the proposals for ATSIC elections in my state of Western Australia.In the augmented review panel report on this matter, the chair of ATSIC specifically said that no wards should be introduced in the Geraldton region. He did so because of concerns expressed by community members. It is my understanding his comments were made in the general section of that report because there is no capacity to file a dissenting report. Senator Bolkus was interjecting on this issue. It is perfectly fair that the interjection should be registered because Senator Herron was suggesting that, because no dissenting report was filed, that meant there was agreement. If there is no legal capacity to file a dissenting report, how dare a minister come into this place and suggest that the absence of a dissenting report indicates assent?It is all very well for the minister to argue that this is an ATSIC report, but clearly there is still division over these matters. Mr Djerrkura has sought to highlight these divisions. The minister's proposal will see five wards in the Geraldton region, which will split the community and make it very much harder for minority views—or smaller, more dispersed communities and groups—to be represented. Once again, Senator Herron has said there will be regions which miss out. Senator Herron is possibly not fully understanding the situation where a number of groups span more than one region in geographical terms. The reality is that we are not talking about a European Australian concept of location, as we would do in normal wards for council elections in Australia; we are talking about culturally appropriate groupings.This likely under-representation is very pronounced in North Queensland where the present deputy chair of the regional council is a Torres Strait Islander. Dividing up Cairns into wards will make it almost impossible for her to be preselected. There will not be enough Torres Strait Islanders in any one ward. It will effectively mean that Torres Strait Islanders who make up a significant proportion of the population in Cairns will not have enough numbers in any one ward to elect any representatives. As well as depriving them of representation, it will also lead to fewer even bothering to take part in the elections, we believe. After all, why would you, if you knew your preferred candidate was not even running in your ward?The minister is also clearly wrong in comments about how representative the Chairman of ATSIC is when he speaks about these things. Senator Herron told the Senate on 10 March that only 25,000 people voted in ATSIC elections. In this, he is quite simply wrong. The actual figures, which were provided to the minister in a brief after the 1996 elections, indicate that 49,812 people voted to elect the 375 councillors—almost 50,000, twice the number Senator Herron told the Senate. In fact, voter turnout when compared with other voluntary voting elections is actually quite respectable. It compares favourably with local government elections in Australia and even compares favourably with elections for the United States Congress. So when Senator Herron gets advice from the elected chair of ATSIC that wards should not be introduced across the board, Senator Herron should listen, we believe, and take note.By contrast with the very reasonable turnout at the elections, turnout for the meeting to discuss the review of electoral matters which led to these changes was rather less representative. In Geraldton the number was 10, in Shark Bay it was 15—hardly an indication that there was much concern about the existing system and certainly not in any way, shape or form a mandate for this change.The chair of ATSIC, Mr Djerrkura, expressed the view that it may be worth the government considering deferring consideration of these proposals. As he says, there is no urgency about them. There could easily be an independent investigation of the various matters in dispute and a better electoral system could be the result in time for the next ATSIC elections.Finally, I want to reiterate the point about the division in the community which is likely to be caused by this action. Surely the minister can see this potential division. It has been pointed out to him in no uncertain manner—not only by ATSIC commissioners themselves but by community organisations around the country. Why does he continue to pursue this course if it is not his aim to foster this division?I can understand the statement `I have no choice', but Senator Herron made his appointments to this panel. We must not let the government further weaken the ability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to speak with a united voice on issues on which they find themselves in conflict with the government. We believe this is an effort to do so. We must vote to disallow this change.18:26:003663Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—In a moment I am going to seek leave to incorporate most of my speech, because I am conscious of how much business we are still trying to get through. I assure the Senate that the speech canvasses much the same material and areas as Senator Bolkus and Senator Margetts have canvassed. I shall also seek leave to table a letter from the Queensland State Advisory Committee of ATSIC.I make a couple of quick comments. It is very true that over this issue there is very great division in the Aboriginal community. I regret that sometimes this government does not seem to understand the need to heal Aboriginal community divisions, not to make them worse. One of the things we must all learn and certainly stick to is that we should never play off one group of Aboriginal people against another.I thank the minister for the briefing that his department gave me. It was very comprehensive and canvassed most of the issues he raised in his speech. But I have to say that on balance the Democrats are prepared to accept the reasons given by the majority of ATSIC commissioners, who did speak to me on a number of occasions. I have read the material they gave me, which was very extensive, and I believe that on balance the Democrats will support this disallowance motion. I seek leave to table a letter from the Queensland State Advisory Committee under the signature of Commissioner Terry O'Shane and to incorporate my speech in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The proposed amendments were tabled in both houses of parliament by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator John Herron, on November 10 last year.They seek to introduce a system of electoral wards into a number of ATSIC regions.They have since been the subject of considerable debate, both within and outside, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The ATSIC Board of Commissioners has serious concerns about the proposed introduction of the ward system to these regions under the amended rules.These concerns were conveyed to the Minister in November last year by way of a letter from the Chairman, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura.The Chairman pointed out in that letter that the board maintained strong objections to the introduction of wards where significant community opposition existed.Commissioners firmly believe that the impact of having a system of wards within these regions will encourage division within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.It will foster a narrow, localised approach to decision making.The Commissioner further feels that the introduction of multiple awards can act against the interests of minority groups within particular regions, making it harder for them to gain representation on regional councils.For example Commissioner Terry O'Shane has pointed out that the proposed division of Cairns into four wards will make it more difficult for members of the Torres Strait Islander community in that region to gain representation on the Cairns and District Regional Council.Commissioners are also concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to traditional relationships between communities in certain regions in determining ward boundaries.As a result many community members will be prevented from voting for representatives from their own `country' often because they have been forced to relocate away from their traditional lands by previous acts of state, territory and federal governments.Senator Herron was informed in November last year by the ATSIC Chairman that a number of commissioners would be making representations to a number of members of parliament seeking their support to disallow the amendments because of these concerns.He made the point that the board recognised the minister was required by the act to give effect to the recommendations arising from a section 141 review and expressed the hope he would understand, and accept as legitimate, the reasons for the opposition of those commissioners to the introduction of wards into various regions.Unfortunately the minister seriously misrepresented this position when this matter became the subject of media debate earlier this year.The media debate was initiated when a number of journalists contacted a number of commissioners following the tabling of the motion of disallowance by Senator Bolkus.The Minister issued a press release on January 14 this year which stated the Chairman had twice signed off, as Chair of the section 141 review panel, on the `unanimous' recommendations of the panel.The statement claimed Mr Djerrkura, amongst others, was not aware of the minister's duty to follow the legislative provisions of the act.This is not true.Mr Djerrkura issued a statement on the same day to clarify the situation.They freely acknowledge there are divisions among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on these matters in some regions.It is their view the introduction of wards works in some areas.It clearly does not in others.This, in my view, is a powerful argument against adopting the proposed changes, not an argument for them.Let there be absolutely no doubt about this matter.I have a copy of a resolution, which I would seek to table, from a meeting in September last year of ATSIC's state advisory committee in Queensland.The SAC, as it is known, is the pre-eminent forum for elected ATSIC representatives in that state. . . it represents all regional council chairs and commissioners.The resolution relates to its consideration of the section 141 review of the ATSIC electoral boundaries.It states, in part, that although it recognises that the ward system may have some application in the major urban regions due to the homogenous nature of the indigenous population in those regions, it overwhelmingly rejects the imposition of wards into ATSIC regions.It considers the introduction of the ward system, as proposed in these regional council rules amendments, to be a retrograde step.It raises a number of other disturbing issues in relation to the consultation process which I do not intend to canvass in this debate.I am aware of suggestions the disallowance motion will have the effect of overturning recommendations in other areas which have strong community support.This argument does not stand up to scrutiny.New rules can be made within six months after the date of disallowance covering those elements of the disallowed rules which the House considers should be allowed to come into effect. In other words the Minister could simply seek to return to the Senate those elements of this package he believes has majority support.In my view there is also absolutely no need for urgency in relation to any subsequent actions by the Minister in this regard in relation to the prospect that the regional council elections are scheduled to be held in October this year.I am informed the Australian Electoral Commission and the administrative arm of ATSIC have recently advised the Howard government that those elections should be suspended until next year.This follows real concerns expressed by the AEC that there could be significant problems attached to holding those elections so close to the proposed referendum in November.I am also informed the administrative arm of ATSIC supports the AEC's concerns in this regard.They have advised the government that they support the Electoral Commission's view that the ATSIC elections should be held next year to ensure a positive outcome from both the referendum and the ATSIC election.I trust the government will accept the advice from both the AEC and ATSIC given the need to ensure the highest possible turnout to both.I am aware that the minister has suggested the view of the ATSIC Chairman that the regional council submissions should be taken as representative of the whole electorate is untenable given the low voter turnout in ATSIC elections.I find this offensive.This is not what the Chairman said.He said quite clearly in the report that where those regional councillors could demonstrate they were expressing the majority view they should be listened to.In any case there is a simple solution available to those who disagree with regional councillors or commissioners who seek to misrepresent the views of their communities in these matters.They simply vote them out. . . .as we do in our electoral matters.One would assume the minister would be seeking to suspend the ATSIC elections and joining with the commission in seeking to bolster the turnout of voters rather than using a perceived low turnout as a point of argument against elected commissioners.One would imagine the minister could also use such an extension of time to carefully re-examine the proposals he has presented here.18:29:003665Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Bolkus that the Regional Council Election Amendment Rules (No. 2) 1998, made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, be disallowed. As has been stated in this debate, these rules have been made by the minister in a manner that he had no discretion about. This was in accordance with the provisions of the act.I first want to say that I am very grateful for the people who have given information to me about this matter. I recognise that I have had representations on this matter from the ATSIC chair, from certain other members of ATSIC and from a group led by Commissioner Ray Robinson, and I also have had a couple of pieces of correspondence, including from the Central Queensland Regional Council. I appreciate receiving that information. I would like now, however, to examine what we are faced with and what I in particular am faced with, because I understand that this is a matter that will come down to my vote.I have listened carefully to Senator Bolkus. He would understand that I give considerable weight to what the ATSIC chair has to say and to what ATSIC has to say. I also listened to what Senator Herron said. I think he outlined the case for the government quite well. I also listened to what Senator Margetts and Senator Woodley had to say. In the situation I am faced with, not only I myself but also every other member of the Senate must consider whether the procedures that are outlined in the ATSIC Act have been followed rigidly and in accordance with the legislation.As honourable senators know, there is a requirement under the act to have an independent review panel established within 90 days of the ATSIC election, and this in fact did occur on this occasion. That independent review panel was established, and I acknowledge what Senator Herron said. I do not think anybody would question the integrity of the people on that panel. I did not hear in any of the advice given to me from all quarters that there was any such objection to the people who had been appointed to the independent review panel in accordance with the legislation.Indeed, from 29 March 1997, the panel published notices in 54 newspapers and periodicals nationally, inviting submissions. There was of course a notice in the Gazette, for those who might read the Gazette—and obviously regional councils would and did. In addition to that, the panel sent out about 2,500 letters to all regional councillors. On the matter of the 2,500 letters, I might just digress by saying that my office gets a fairly large number of letters, and one day it actually peaked at 2,500. I thought I would not let the opportunity pass to say that. So there were 2,500 letters sent out, but the significance of this is that all regional councils and all members of the Torres Strait Regional Authority and all recognised indigenous organisations received that letter. Resulting from the publicity, 29 submissions were received within the due date of the 90-day statutory limit, but late submissions were accepted by the independent review panel.The minister has indicated that the review panel did examine the representation of the distinct groups, consistent with the provision of section 141(6) of the act. It is interesting to note that the panel considered that, while it was not possible generally to ensure the representation on regional council of all groups, it was possible to try and ensure that the interests of all groups were represented. It is not possible on the one hand to ensure the representation of all groups on the region council; that is clearly not possible. But it is important to ensure that the interests of all the groups are represented.The panel, in its review, indicated that there was a potential disadvantage for groups in regions not divided into wards and it decided to put the issue to public consultation meetings. These took place, and 23 consultation meetings were held, covering all affected regions. I am outlining this because it is most difficult—in fact, impossible—in my position to challenge the legality of what has happened, and it is very difficult to question that the independent review committee has acted in the best possible manner in which a review panel should act.The panel published in the Gazette and in the press a notification of the processes for objections, and there were 13 objections, as Senator Bolkus indicated. Under the act, the minister can convene the augmented panel, and that has been referred to before. But what has not been referred to is that the augmented panel conducted a number of open public consultations at eight locations.As a result of all of this—to cut a long story short—the augmented independent review panel made its final recommendations in June last year. They were published in the press and the Gazette. They were provided to the minister in early July. As has been stated in this chamber, the minister has no discretion in this matter. I am, therefore, in no position to criticise the minister because his statutory obligation is to make rules in accordance with the recommendations of the augmented panel—that is, if there are objections to the independent review panel's recommendations. All the procedures have been undertaken.In those circumstances, what is the alternative? I am not convinced, and I certainly have not been convinced—quite the contrary—that the views that have been expressed to me by those groups that I mentioned are the unanimous views of Aboriginal people—far from it. It has been indicated by the minister that there would be considerable disenfranchisement of a number of groups if the panel's final recommendations are not accepted, or if the rules are disallowed by this chamber.The alternative is to say, `The ATSIC board of council can veto it.' There is no such provision in the legislation for a veto. What we are being asked to do is to say, `Accept that the ATSIC board of commissioners have, in effect, a veto.' That is not in the legislation. All of the provisions of the legislation have been observed meticulously. Under those circumstances, I propose to vote against the disallowance motion.Question put:That the motion (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.18:45:00The Senate divided. 0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.0Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. *Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Minchin, N. H.Crowley, R. A. Synon, K. M.Denman, K. J. Crane, W.Hutchins, S. Vanstone, A. E.Lees, M. H. Parer, W. R.Mackay, S. Hill, R. M.Ray, R. F. Boswell, R. L. D.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:48:003667Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I wish to correct a statement which I made previously. I am indebted to Senator Margetts, who has provided me with a document from the Townsville regional office of the Queensland State Advisory Committee in which the chairperson of the regional council and Commissioner Rosendahl had this to say:In addition, the State Advisory Committee takes strong exception to the flawed consultation process undertaken by the review team and believes that the very small number of people consulted the obvious conflict of interests of some of the panel members and the failure of the review team to acknowledge the formal review of regional council places serious doubt over the accuracy of the review findings.In the prior debate, I mentioned that I had not heard that anybody had impugned or challenged any member of the review panel. Clearly, in this particular case there is a suggestion of conflict of interest of some of the panel. I am not sure of the details, but I thought I would put that into the record.Miscellaneous366718:50:003667Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:That the Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 285 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.As I understand, we will not be rising tonight until we come to a vote on this issue. Is that correct, or will we have to try to finish this by 7.20 p.m.?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator, I do not think we have been so advised.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Okay. I wanted to get clarification on that because, as senators may be aware, this is the final day that this disallowance motion can be debated and determined under whatever arcane legal requirements we have that govern these things.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—It is not arcane; you have delayed it.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I have not delayed it. Under the law as it stands, if a motion is not voted on by the time 15 sitting days expire from when it was first given, then the regulations are taken to be disallowed. My view is very much that I do not want a regulation to be disallowed purely because time expired for consideration of it. I put on the record the fact that I was ready for this to be debated more than a week ago. If we have to finish this by 7.20 p.m., then I will be very brief at this stage. Hopefully, other senators will likewise be brief because I do not wish to have a disallowance go through purely because of an expiry of time. I think that is a very inappropriate way for any regulation or disallowable instrument to be disallowed.At this stage I will just give a brief outline. The migration amendment regulation that is contained in statutory rules No. 285 makes it harder for parents to migrate to Australia. While the first instalment of the visa application charge for onshore applicants in this category has remained unchanged at $1,060, the second instalment has increased from $945 per person to $5,000 per adult person and $945 per person under 18 years old. The assurance of support bond has also risen from $3,500 for the main applicant and $1,500 per additional adult to $4,000 for the main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. This money continues to be refunded after two years if social security benefits have not been accessed.Applicants under this new parent category are accorded a higher priority than those under the old subclass. One of the areas of concern to the Democrats is that those people who can afford the increased amounts that are required under the visa application charge and the assurance of support bond basically get into the fast lane while the rest have to wait in the longer queue. A very simple—but I imagine quite easy to comprehend—analogy would be people in a long line queuing to get into the movies, the footy or whatever, and having to wait and potentially miss out because they are too far back in the queue. But if they pay double the price then they are able to jump into the fast lane and get in. In the Democrats' view, that is not a desirable approach to public policy. We believe that, in some circumstances, the aspect of applicants under this category having to apply from offshore and no longer being able to apply onshore may also generate some problems. We think it is inappropriately inflexible as well. The very large hike in fees and charges for the new parent/aged dependent relative categories will make it virtually impossible in some cases for parents to apply. The Democrats feel the changes open Australia's immigration law up to the charge of being directed more towards the rich and discriminating against the poor and underprivileged. The Democrats believe that in an area such as parent reunions, which is very different from skilled migration or business migration, we should not have too high a high-jump bar or a hurdle for people purely on the basis of their income. In addition, people able to pay the new increased charges have been placed at the top of the processing queue, while those unable to afford these charges but have lodged applications at an earlier time have slipped back in the queue. We believe this is fundamentally unfair.Because I am trying to be brief I will just raise one other point, which will enable other senators to put forward their views on the disallowance motion. I have said a number of times in this place that, broadly speaking, I find the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, reasonably willing to enter into negotiations to consider different views and concerns that senators and the community have about approaches that he is considering taking. I do not want to make this sound like a blanket statement but I have been somewhat disappointed that the main response from the minister on this regulation has been basically to threaten that if the Senate passes this disallowance motion then his response will be to further slash the parent reunion program from the current level of 2,800 per year to around 500 per year, which will obviously significantly increase the waiting period even further. For 1998-99 the government has capped the parent subclass at about 2,800 places.As I said, the minister's response to the concerns that have been put forward not only from the Democrats but also from the community about this measure has been to say, `If you don't like it and you knock it off, I will put in an incredibly tight cap of only 500. And then I will tell the community that it is all the Senate's fault or the Democrats' fault or my fault or whoever's fault.' I am not overly impressed with that as an appropriate way of deciding public policy outcomes.I would say that if at the end of the day—to use a cliche—the minister decides to introduce a cap of 500 per year in the parent reunion program, then that is the minister's decision. It is not a decision of the Senate. We are only able to debate and consider proposals put forward by the government, by the executive, on their face value. That is what the Democrats are doing in relation to this regulation.If the minister wants to respond by introducing another measure that is even more draconian than that, then that is on his head and that is for him to justify. It is the parliament's role and duty to assess disallowable instruments, and to decide whether they are appropriate public policy—whether they are appropriate under the broad range of measures, such as fairness and equity, that we have to consider. I think the parliament will make a decision based on those sorts of grounds. If the minister wants to respond by introducing a further unfair measure, then that is for him to decide and for him to justify.18:58:003669Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports the motion moved by Senator Bartlett to disallow Migration Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 285 and made under the Migration Act 1958. These regulations are a response to perceived direct costs associated with family reunion migration, particularly for parents over the age of 45. The opposition believes the government cost analysis is narrowly focused on direct and short-term profit and loss considerations.We have a number of reasons for opposing these regulations. Senator Bartlett has already outlined a number of reasons, with which we would agree. Firstly, the total cost of sponsoring two parents to Australia under these new rules is about $17,000, which includes the application fee, social security bond, health levy plus air fares. Under the new regulation, the new aged parent visa subclass will be given priority in processing, even ahead of parent visa applications lodged years ago. This is in fact queue jumping and discriminates against poorer applicants, which is very inequitable.Under the new regulation no other reunion of parents with their adult children or grandchildren will be possible until the parents reach retirement age. This will deprive Australian families of the direct and valuable supportive role of parents and grandparents which helps to stabilise families.Under the new regulation the old pipeline, which currently stands at approximately 17,500, will be allowed to either stagnate or will be abandoned altogether. A token allowance of 25 per cent of total annual parent intake has been earmarked for the old pipeline—about 700 places on last year's figures. This is a totally inappropriate measure as the current intake levels indicate that it would take over 25 years to clear the backlog. For those reasons, and in view of the time, the opposition strongly opposes these regulations and urges the Senate to throw them out.19:00:003669Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—It is my strong view, as I have expressed time and time again, that anyone lawfully resident in this country has the right to have their family with them. In my view, these regulations are inconsistent with my longstanding position on the importance of a fair and equitable family reunion program. Family migration, family reunion and the refugee and humanitarian programs should be the cornerstone of our policy. Australia's migration program should be based on the principles of non-discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnic origin, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, religion, language, gender, disability, age and socioeconomic background. Giving people preferential treatment because of their socioeconomic background, as the government is proposing, goes against these principles.These regulations create a subclass of visas for applicants who are able to jump ahead in the very long queue for parent visas because they have the financial means to do so. Those with the money get here quicker, those who do not have the money must continue to wait in line for what seems to be an ever dwindling number of places.In November 1998 the government introduced a massive increase in application fees, health levies and assurance of support requirements for parents. This has virtually doubled the cost of sponsoring both parents to Australia. The new visa category requires fees of $4,000 for a single and $6,000 for a couple. Applicants also have to provide a medical bond of $5,000 towards their Medicare costs, up from $940 for normal parent reunion. The assurance of support compulsory bond increases from $3,500 for main applications plus $1,500 per additional adult to $4,000 for main applicant and $2,000 per additional adult. The huge increases in the second instalment of the visa application charge plus increased bonds mean parent migration is a financial impossibility for many Australian families.I am concerned about the message this sends about the government's suggestion that it is pro-family in this regard. Should family reunion only be the preserve of the rich? The total cost of sponsoring parents to Australia is now $17,060 plus airfares. For middle and low income Australians the cost is now simply prohibitive.These regulations must be seen in the context of the overall erosion of the family reunion category. A total of 8,890 parent visas were issued in 1995-96. This has been whittled down now to a mere 2,500 parent visas. Meanwhile, the queue has grown to 19,600 parent applicants who have applied to join their children here. Parents have been particularly hard hit by the capping and queuing practice of the federal government. The capping of parent visas has created indefinite waiting periods for large numbers of parents. Many may well die waiting.Yet there is no quota on the number of applicants who may be granted visas in the new category. The wealthy will be able to avoid the lengthy delays caused by capping of parent visas. I remind the Senate that there are 19,600 parents waiting in the queue. We should also bear in mind that those here as refugee or humanitarian entrants cannot visit their home of origin. They may never see their parents again.These new regulations are in response to the perceived direct costs associated with family reunion migration, particularly for parents aged over 45. However, the cost analysis does not take into account indirect economic benefits and social benefits that flow to Australia through family reunion migration. Economic formulations do not take into account benefits such as child care, physical and emotional support and cultural education; these are not of zero value.I share the view of the South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service: `The need to have a fair immigration system which does not discriminate harshly against the poor, nor destroy family is fundamental to a just society.' These regulations lay our immigration law open to a charge of being a law for the rich which discriminates against the poor and underprivileged.The minister has said he will cut the quota for parent reunions by 50 per cent to just 500 a year if this disallowance succeeds. This would result in waiting times of up to 40 years for parents already in the queue. I do not believe we should make decisions in this place based on these sorts of threats. I acknowledge that the minister, whom I respect and who has a feel for this, is under considerable constraints. I acknowledge he has taken some steps to lessen some of the harsh effects of these regulations, for example, allowing parents with children to apply onshore. However, this does not go to the heart of the problem with these regulations, that is, that the majority of applicants are discriminated against because of their lack of financial means.I have tried hard to find a way through all this. I have not been unmoved by calls from those who believe this new visa category may be the only chance they have to bring their parents out. But we need to address the very real needs of those languishing in the queues. Until these needs are addressed, I can do nothing other than support the disallowance motion.19:07:003670Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise to thank honourable senators for their contributions and to say that if we defer a motion to the last day it does put a bit of pressure on. Maybe it is a lesson for all of us that we should try to debate such a motion the day before the last day so we are not in this situation.I would like to reply to what Senator Harradine said. I would not always want to speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber, but I think I could speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber today and say: if we had our druthers, if it were an ideal world, we would want every single person who had migrated to Australia to be able to be reunited with their parents and bring them here. That is not possible.One of the reasons it is not possible is that it would distort our population profile. The other reason is that it would place a very large burden on our social security system. Despite the rule that older people who migrate here must live here for 10 years before they can receive the pension, an inordinate number of people of working age who come in the aged parent visa category end up on unemployment benefits, and many end up on special benefits, because the families fail to meet their obligations. It is not all families. Many families who bring their older relatives here do the right thing and care for them.But, as a government, we have to make judgments about the extent to which people should be expected to provide for older relatives who migrate here; relatives who have not made a contribution in Australia or who come from countries that do not have reciprocal pension arrangements with Australia. These are judgments that have to be made. We could not accept the number of people who are applying in the parent category and at the rate at which they are applying.When the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, went around last year consulting on immigration issues, one of the issues that was raised by a number of the groups was: `Couldn't we have a category for people who have made a commitment to care for their parents and to be financially responsible for them?' That came out of those community consultations, and some of the people who were asking for that were from some of the welfare organisations. So the minister decided to develop regulations that would accommodate that request.In my new role as parliamentary secretary, I was with the minister in his consultations right around Australia, and people were positive about that development. We went to every capital city, and there was not any criticism made. We had public meetings, we met with peak bodies, and not one person was critical of those regulations. In fact, they thanked the minister for introducing them.I was at a meeting here in Parliament House with a number of organisations, and one of the groups went over the same thing. They said they wanted a regulation that contained a category where the sponsoring family took responsibility. The minister said, `We have that, but it is at risk at the moment because we have a motion in the Senate to disallow the regulation.' I have to tell you that those people were nothing short of horrified.We have heard that the parents of people who are wealthy or have more income than others will be able to jump the queue ahead of others. Let me put the argument the other way. Senator Harradine and others might disagree that there has to be a cap, but I think the Australian public has reached the point of saying, `We need a cap because we cannot support an inordinate number of people.' If we have a cap and we do not have these regulations, everybody will be in the queue. Therefore, those who could afford to be included in the category that is covered in these regulations would preclude those who cannot afford to be there. So you would preclude people who cannot afford to come. That is the thing that honourable senators have to think about.I think you will find that the community is quite concerned. I can say from my personal experience of nearly all of those consultations with the minister right around Australia, including rural Australia, there was not one concern expressed. Any comments that were made about these regulations were positive.I am very sad tonight. My mother migrated to America when I was about 21 years old—Senator Carr interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Thank you, Senator Carr. That was an unnecessary interjection. I did not ever expect that I would have a right to be reunited with her—as her last relative in Australia—in America. I know that sometimes these decisions are made when you are younger, and you do not realise you are going to get older. It is difficult, and I understand the difficulties people face when they have a relative living in another country. But it is not possible for us to allow everyone who applies to come. We were hoping to make it easier for some and to ensure that we could have as many as possible. I regret that the Senate has made this decision tonight. I hope, if the minister decides to reintroduce this regulation—he may not—that you will consider it again.Again, I express my regret. I express my regret to those people who are in the queue. I have forgotten how many have applied and voted with their feet to transfer across categories—it is something like 2,800 people. I say to those 2,800 people tonight: I am very sorry that you will have to go back into the queue and you will not have the opportunity of having your parents here as soon as you thought. That is my regret tonight.19:15:003672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am quite sorry that this is the standard of the government's debate. I am afraid that we will get to the situation where immigration will go to the highest bidder. Perhaps this would be a good way of raising more revenue!I am absolutely disgusted, when we see evidence again and again in this chamber of groups that have been gagged or de-funded for speaking out—migration groups that have lost their funding, who do not exist or cannot exist as lobbyists anymore—that the government can come in here and say, `As those who don't speak to us or criticise us when we speak to them, it means there is no dissent.' They come to groups like us. They come to groups like the Democrats. They may come to groups like the Labor Party or Senator Harradine because they know that, if they go to the government, the government will say, `We don't pay you to criticise us.'How dare you come in and suggest that, if people have not expressed their concern or criticised government to your face, that is a sign there is no discontent. It is a sign that your policies of gagging dissent have been very, very effective. Do not come into this chamber and say that, if people do not say to your face that they have concerns about your programs, it means there is no problem. There are problems in your programs. A strong government is one which is prepared to listen to those issues and not gag those people systematically for speaking out.This is unfortunate. There are a lot of emotions here, but we should not be a country which sells off places of immigration to the highest bidder, and this is what it is getting to. It is not fair, it is not right, and therefore I will be supporting the disallowance.19:17:003672Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—in reply—There are a couple of matters I need to respond to. I note the parliamentary secretary's comment that the government is hoping to have as many people as possible. I hope that that is followed through by the minister and that he does not follow through on his unnecessary threat to severely restrict the amount of people overall that are able to get in here. If that does happen, then clearly there will be a lot more people negatively affected than the ones that the parliamentary secretary has expressed concerns about.It is a shame we did not have time to fully debate the issues, because they are important and complex. The reason why it was continually deferred was not that I was not ready to deal with it but that other senators indicated they were not ready to deal with it, so I had to keep deferring it. It is important that the parliament's responsibility to make a judgment on this matter has been fulfilled. I do thank other senators for their support for the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3672367219:18:003672O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Bill 1998, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous3673367319:19:003673O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills3673r754Billsr755Billsr761Billsr765Billsr763Billsr764Billsr757Billsr760Billsr758Billsr759Billsr756Billsr7623673Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.367319:20:003673Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 1999The Bills I introduce today form the third round of legislation required to establish A New Tax System for Australia. The reform of our tax system, the most comprehensive since Federation, provides a rare opportunity for the Government to address inefficiencies in the way we conduct our affairs.The first part of the Government's legislation was introduced in November 1998 to make private health insurance more affordable. The Government introduced a universal 30 per cent benefit to be claimed against the cost of health insurance contributions as either a rebate on tax or a direct payment from the Government.A second round of legislation was introduced in December 1998 to abolish the outdated Wholesale Sales Tax and replace it with a broad based Goods and Services Tax (GST) to be levied at 10 per cent as from 1 July 2000. Included in this legislation were Bills to introduce $13 billion of annual personal income tax cuts; the provision of powers to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to ensure that it can monitor prices for 12 months before the GST starts and 2 years after; a tightening of the reporting of fringe benefits to prevent some higher income earners taking advantage of Government assistance designed for low income earners; and bonuses for older Australians.Madam President, the Bills before us today represent a further major step in comprehensive reform of our tax system. With this third round of legislation, the Government puts forward landmark reform of the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. It also includes further reforms to the way luxury cars and wine are taxed, removing inefficiencies and smoothing the transition to the modern indirect tax system endorsed by the Australian people in the last election.Reform of Commonwealth-State financial arrangementsMadam President, let me emphasise that the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories are in agreement that the current financial relationship between levels of government must be reformed. Australia needs a stronger and more productive federal system for the next century. This will help deliver it.A key feature of the new tax system is the Commonwealth's offer to the States and Territories of a stable and growing source of revenue. By passing all the revenues from the GST to the States and Territories, the Commonwealth will provide the States and Territories with a superior growth tax that will allow them to remove nine of their current taxes. They will abolish Financial Institutions Duty, Debits tax, a number of business-related stamp duties and accommodation taxes.This will reduce the cost of financial transactions and increase Australia's attractiveness as a major financial centre.The new arrangements mean that the States and Territories will no longer have to rely on inefficient taxes to raise their own source revenues, and will have greater independence from Commonwealth funding.They will no longer have to rely on general purpose grants from the Commonwealth which have been the subject of much debate each year at the annual Premiers' Conference.The Prime Minister and the Treasurer met with all Premiers, Chief Ministers and State Treasurers last November to discuss these new arrangements. An historic agreement was reached at this Special Premiers' Conference, covering principles that will guide the implementation of far-reaching reforms to Commonwealth and State taxation and to federal financial arrangements. GST RevenuesAt the Special Premiers' Conference, the Commonwealth committed to legislate to provide all the revenue from the GST to the States and Territories. The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 provides a standing appropriation of the GST revenues to the States and Territories. As indicated by the Government in August 1998, these revenues will be distributed to the States and Territories according to the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. The Bill provides the basic formula that will determine this distribution.These reforms will replace the current system of Financial Assistance Grants by the Commonwealth to the States and Territories. These grants will be abolished as of 1 July 2000.Transitional assistanceThe Commonwealth also guaranteed that during the initial period following the introduction of the GST, a period not less than 3 years, the Government will pay transitional assistance to the States and Territories in each of these years to ensure that they are no worse off financially than they would have been under the current arrangements. Payments under this aggregate funding guarantee will be made so that the budgetary position of each State and Territory will be no worse off in each year.Both the GST revenue and transitional assistance payments will be freely available for use by the States and Territories for any purpose. These arrangements will bring enhanced revenue security to the States and Territories. It will ensure that they can fund a sustainable level of quality services for hospitals, for schools, for roads and for law enforcement.Other paymentsThe Bill also includes provisions to ensure that States and Territories will retain their existing entitlements to franchise fee windfall tax and competition payments.Lock-in of GST rate and baseMadam President, I would like to turn to the process for locking-in the GST rate. The Commonwealth has indicated very clearly that no change to the GST rate will be implemented without the unanimous support of all the States and Territories and both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. The Bill clearly provides this lock-in mechanism. The mechanism will be backed by the Commonwealth-State Intergovernmental Agreement as well as by legislation.The introduction of a GST is a major undertaking and like the introduction of any major tax, provisions must be made for fine-tuning. The Government expects that some administrative changes or minor adjustments may be required in the early months of operation, generally having regard to the need to protect revenues. It would be irresponsible for the Government to ignore this. As the GST revenue will be directed to the States and Territories, the Bill ensures that the States and Territories will be involved if changes to the GST base prove necessary.However, time will be of the essence in the first year of operation. Therefore, to ensure that action is taken as quickly as necessary, the Commonwealth will reserve the right in the first year to introduce legislation or regulation that may impact on the GST base but is necessary for the smooth and proper operation of the GST. This right is reserved only for changes which are of an administrative nature, necessary to facilitate minor adjustments to the GST and are made having regard to the need to protect the revenue of the States and Territories. After the first 12 months, any change to the base will be subject to the approval of the States and Territories and both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.The 10 per cent GST rate is locked-in with the passage of this legislation.Intergovernmental AgreementThe Bill before you today will result in a major transformation of the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. It brings a new era of cooperation between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments.Reforming the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements is a major undertaking. However, not all aspects of this reform are appropriately addressed through legislation. Other mechanisms are better suited for arrangements between governments. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the States and Territories with respect to the reform of our financial arrangements.This agreement, which will be discussed at the forthcoming Premiers' Conference, will spell out the detailed arrangements for the implementation of the reforms to Commonwealth-State financial relations.In addition to outlining the Commonwealth commitments reflected in these Bills, the Intergovernmental Agreement will detail the obligations which the States and Territories are assuming as part of the new arrangements. In particular, these obligations will include:the repeal of nine inefficient State and Territory indirect taxes;the assumption by the States and Territories of responsibility for the funding of local government; and the operation of a First Home Owners Scheme by the States and Territories.Madam President, national indirect tax reform means that the financial arrangements relating to local government can also be reformed. The revenues from the GST base will be sufficient to also fund the Commonwealth's current contribution to local government.Therefore, starting in July 2000, responsibility for ongoing financial assistance to local government will be transferred to States and Territories.States and Territories will be required to continue to provide general purpose assistance payments to local government at a level which is at least equal to that which would have been paid under the current funding arrangements.In return for the GST revenue, States and Territories have also committed to take on specific responsibilities in assisting homebuyers with the purchase of their first home. Starting in July 2000, States and Territories will assist first homebuyers through funding and administering a new First Home Owners Scheme, designed to offset the impact of the introduction of a GST on the price of new homes.Consequential legislationMadam President, I also introduce as part of this package of legislation the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 . This Bill repeals the States Grants (General Purpose) Act 1994 , the legislation governing the current Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. It also amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to enable a smooth transition of payments in 1999-2000, and provides for its repeal on commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 .The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 provides for financial assistance for local government by means of grants to the States and the Northern Territory.As I mentioned before, under the Government's reform package, these financial assistance grants are to be abolished from 1 July 2000 and the States and Territories will take over responsibility for providing this assistance to local government from GST revenue.The Commonwealth recognises that local government needs certainty in its funding arrangements and has guaranteed that payments to local government will be in accordance with existing conditions. The States and the Northern Territory will make payments at least equal to the amount local government now receives under the financial assistance grant arrangements, adjusted each year for population and inflation movements. These are non-negotiable conditions for the payment of GST revenue to the States and Territories.The States and Territories are responsible for local government under the relevant legislation and it is therefore appropriate that they resume financial responsibility for local government. The new arrangements will be set out in more detail in the Intergovernmental Agreement to be considered at the forthcoming Premiers' Conference.ConclusionMadam President, the third round of legislation I am introducing today represents a major step towards establishing a modern tax system for Australia.The reform of Commonwealth-State financial arrangements will improve the financial position of the States and Territories by providing them with a more robust tax base which can be expected to grow over time.At the same time, it will allow the States and Territories to abolish bank transaction taxes, a number of stamp duties and accommodation taxes. The cost of financial transactions will be reduced and Australia's attractiveness as a major financial centre enhanced.Full details of the measures in the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the Bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS-CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1999With the Government's introduction of A New Tax System , the current arrangements for provision of Commonwealth financial assistance to the State, Territory and local governments will change. This Bill repeals the two Acts that currently provide this assistance—the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 . The second of these Acts falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government and in presenting this Bill I therefore also do so on his behalf.Under the proposed reforms, all Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue will be distributed to the States and Territories, and Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs) will be abolished. The States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 , which appropriates funding for payments of FAGs to the States and Territories, will be repealed on commencement of A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 . States and Territories have provided their agreement in-principle to assuming responsibility for local government funding. This Bill therefore amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to enable a smooth transition of payments in 1999-2000 and provides for its repeal, also on commencement of A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 .The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 was designed for the continual payment of grants, with adjustments in respect of one year's payments being made in the following year. This adjustment process will not be available after 30 June 2000. This Bill therefore amends the Act to provide for payments in the final quarter of 1999-2000 to be paid by monthly instalments, with the instalment adjusted to reflect the final determination of the local government grant for that year.In addition, notwithstanding the repeal of the Act, State Treasurers will be required to report to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government that the 1999-2000 payments have been passed on to local government and will need to provide a certificate by the State Auditor-General to that effect. As is currently the case, the Minister will be required to report to the Parliament on the operation of the Act in 1999-2000 as soon as practicable after 30 June next year.Full details of the measures in the Bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the Bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (WINE EQUALISATION TAX) BILL 1999This bill will introduce a wine equalisation tax. From 1 July 2000 it is proposed that the nation have A New Tax System which will abolish wholesale sales tax (WST) and replace it with a goods and services tax (GST) at the rate of 10 per cent. Currently wine products are subject to wholesale sales tax at the rate of 41 per cent.The wine equalisation tax means that after the abolition of WST and its replacement with GST prices are equalised back to avoid dramatic and dislocating price falls.The Bill will apply to wine products including non-grape wines, cider, perry, mead and sake.The government has consulted industry and taken advice from industry representations. The bill applies to a broader range of products than outlined in A New Tax System . In particular, cider is included and will remain excise free. From 1 July 2000 the wine equalisation tax will be levied at a rate of 29 per cent.This will achieve the relative price impacts on cask and bottled wine outlined in our tax reform policy endorsed by the Australian public at the last election. In line with that policy the price of a typical four-litre cask of wine need only increase by the estimated general price increase associated with indirect tax reform; that is, 1.9 per cent.The wine equalisation tax payable will be incorporated into the net amount calculation under the GST so that taxpayers do not have additional payment and administrative obligations.The tax will apply to assessable dealings and importations and a quotation system will ensure that the incidence of the tax is delayed until the final sale at the wholesale level or an equivalent transaction.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (WINE EQUALISATION TAX IMPOSITION—GENERAL) BILL 1999This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs, at the rate of 29 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (WINE EQUALISATION TAX IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) BILL 1999This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is a duty of customs, at the rate of 29 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (WINE EQUALISATION TAX IMPOSITION—EXCISE) BILL 1999This bill will impose wine equalisation tax, to the extent that it is a duty of excise, at the rate of 29 per cent. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX) BILL 1999This bill will introduce a luxury car tax in place of the current 22 per cent wholesale sales tax that applies to cars generally and the 45 per cent wholesale sales tax applying to luxury cars. From 1 July 2000 it is proposed that the nation will have A New Tax System . The wholesale sales tax will be abolished and replaced with goods and services tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The price of cars will fall when wholesale sales tax is abolished. If the government took no additional action the price of luxury cars would fall dramatically more than non-luxury cars because they are currently subject to wholesale sales tax at the rate of 45 per cent.The luxury car tax will make up for the removal of the wholesale sales tax luxury loading.From 1 July 2000 luxury car tax will apply at the rate of 25 per cent. The tax will be applied to the portion of the price of a luxury vehicle above the income tax depreciation limit. The limit is currently $55,134. The luxury car tax will be payable in addition to the GST but on a GST exclusive price. It will be incorporated into the net amount calculation under the GST so that taxpayers do not have additional payment and administrative obligations.A quotation system will ensure that the incidence of the tax is delayed until the car is sold at the retail level. The luxury car tax will not apply to the private sale of motor vehicles by unregistered persons.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—GENERAL) BILL 1999This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I present the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) BILL 1999This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is a duty of customs, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—EXCISE) BILL 1999This bill will impose luxury car tax, to the extent that it is a duty of excise, at the rate of 25 per cent.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INDIRECT TAX ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999This bill will amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to bring the wine equalisation tax and the luxury car tax within the administrative powers exercised by the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of taxation laws.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (WINE EQALISATION TAX AND LUXURY CAR TAX TRANSITION) BILL 1999This bill sets out special rules needed to ensure a smooth transition from the existing wholesale sales tax applied to wine and luxury cars, to the new wine equalisation and luxury car tax arrangements.A special goods and services tax credit will be available for sales tax already paid on stock that becomes subject to wine equalisation tax. The bill will also provide that the proposed luxury car tax is not payable on cars sold by retail before 1 July 2000.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I present the explanatory memorandum and I commend the bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Miscellaneous3678367819:20:003678O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Bill 1998, together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—On behalf of Senator Payne, I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous367819:21:003678Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—by leave—During my speech on the disallowance motion, I referred to a figure of 2,800 people who had transferred from one category to the other under the new regulation. It was actually 2,000.Adjournment367810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order! It being after 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.367819:21:003678O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—There are many matters that concern the public about accountability, and quite rightly so. One of the matters which vexes the minds of people is of course whether public companies should be privatised. One of the issues that arises out of that is when people say, `If you privatise them, you lose the accountability to the parliament and you lose the accountability to the people.' Various people in this chamber take different views about that. But what is very clear is that, when a corporation is in majority public ownership or wholly in public ownership, it is the taxpayers' money that is being used to run that organisation. When that organisation wastes the money, it is the taxpayers' money which is being wasted.What concerns me greatly is a series of reports recently that suggest that the Commonwealth Bank, when it was in majority public ownership, wrote off or made provision for some $4½ million which was owed by a company connected with the former Prime Minister, the Prime Minister at that time. This is of concern because there are many people in this country who have been bankrupted by the Commonwealth Bank for substantially less than $4½ million. They did not have their loans written off, they did not have the benefit of any favourable treatment at all; they were bankrupted. Yet the Commonwealth Bank, it is suggested, wrote off an amount of $4½ million, or made provision for that loss, against loans made to companies associated with the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating.If that is correct, it means that those companies have in fact benefited to the tune of $4½ million out of the taxpayers' purse. That is unacceptable and should be investigated not as a matter of a vendetta against the former Prime Minister but as a matter of accountability for $4½ million that came out of an institution which was in majority ownership by the public. I would suspect that every single person who has been bankrupted by the Commonwealth Bank in the last few years would take exactly the same view. Every reasonable person would say that that is appropriate for investigation, particularly when people are frequently tried for offences of appropriating public money of substantially less amounts.Senator Brown would know that many people are sued by the Commonwealth, tried in courts, because it is alleged they have defrauded the Commonwealth of social security amounts that are substantially less. Yet here is an allegation that some $4½ million or more was written off. On top of that, there was an allegation made in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday that, in addition to this, Mr Keating or companies associated with him received the benefit of an interest-free loan for a period of six years in the amount of some $4.7 million. That too is frightening. The annual interest bill on that would be the price of a family home in my state, yet this interest could be written off by an entity which was at that time in majority public ownership. This is wrong. It is wrong that it should happen and that there is no investigation.The reason I raise these matters today is that I am informed that, as of last week, there were staffing changes in the credit, policy and recovery sections of the Commonwealth Bank. It is my understanding that senior people in those sections of the bank have been replaced, moved sideways, relieved of their posts or whatever it is. It seems passing strange that this should happen at the same time as these allegations are raised. Let me put on the record that if there is to be an investigation—and I believe there should be one because it is the public's money that is at stake—I would hope that these changes in the staffing arrangements are not merely to find some convenient scapegoats down the track or to remove people who might be able to give information on exactly what happened.I do not know what the line delegations are in the Commonwealth Bank in terms of write-off. But I would suggest that writing off an amount of $4½ million or more would require the approval of more than just somebody in the credit, policy or recovery sections of the Commonwealth Bank. It is my belief that to write off an amount of that much money it would be necessary for the matter to have been reviewed by the bank's credit committee, if not by the board of the bank itself.So I want to put on the record tonight that, if there is to be an investigation, I would hope that this would not be something that was done to stymie the investigation of why those decisions were made. Similarly, it is very peculiar, almost unheard of, for banks to give people interest-free loans for a period of six years. Again, we ought to ask who in this publicly controlled bank made those decisions. Did it go to the board, did it go to the credit committee of the bank or was it merely dealt with internally? These are matters that do need to be answered. They need to be answered because the taxpayers need to be assured that their money was not wasted. They need to be answered because there are many people out there who have lost everything—have had litigation over a period of years, have lost their houses, their businesses, their cars and their personal possessions because they owed a lot less.It is entirely inappropriate for people in the other place to say that this is all just some horrible vendetta against the former Prime Minister—it is not. If this were some vendetta against the former Prime Minister, I think it would have taken a completely different complexion. This is a serious issue of public accountability, and no amount of huffing, puffing and arguments by the previous Prime Minister that Kerry Packer did not like him because he did not agree to the takeover of Fairfax will hide the fact that there are serious questions which need to be answered. None of that huffing and puffing will hide the fact that many of the things the former Prime Minister said to this parliament about his business dealings proved to be wildly and grossly inaccurate, to say the very least.I do not wish to prejudge the matter. But I do wish to place it strongly on the record on behalf of the thousands and thousands of people who have had dealings with the Commonwealth Bank substantially less amiable than these that they want the matter investigated because that is the only fair thing to do and that is the only fair thing to do on behalf of the Australian taxpayers as well.368019:30:003680Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Sport is central to the lives of many Aboriginal and Islander people, and they rightly look to sport as an activity where they are afforded equality and social inclusion. We are at a point in Australian history where the coalition government is eroding the rights of indigenous people on a regular basis. Examples of this include Mr Howard's failure to acknowledge custodian ship in his first draft preamble and the diminution of their land rights and heritage. This erosion of rights has also attracted the wrath of the United Nations. Given this context, the importance and sensitivity of the portrayal of the Aboriginal and Islander people in the media has taken on an even greater significance.The empathy and pride evoked by indigenous sporting achievers has been described as doing more for the process of reconciliation than any political endeavours. Unfortunately, the coverage of indigenous sports stars has sometimes degenerated into condescending commentary with paternalistic and racist overtones. In particular, it is deeply offensive to describe Aboriginal players as going walkabout or missing when they have an off game. Aboriginal people have achieved great success in sport, and Professor Colin Tatz's book Obstacle Race reveals the extent to which Aboriginal people have had to overcome adversity and racism in order to become elite sports people.Racism in sport has again been brought to the fore this week when the Western Bulldogs' Nicky Winmar was subjected to a racist slur by The Footy Show. Mr Winmar described the incident in which The Footy Show presenter Sam Newman blackened his face to look like the Aboriginal star, accurately in my view, as disgraceful and disgusting. Media identities are role models and as such they have a social responsibility to ensure that any form of racial vilification is removed from sport. The immense popularity of The Footy Show presenters naturally places an even greater pressure on them to act in a socially responsible way. Surely it is possible to be witty without relying on race. Obviously not in Sam Newman's case. Mr Newman has exacerbated the problem and, regrettably, Nicky Winmar is now getting more publicity for this incident than for his inspiring football abilities. Perhaps it is time funding for sporting bodies was linked to their strategies aimed at eliminating racism. Both AFL and rugby league have exceptionally high numbers of Aboriginal and Islander players, yet these organisations are yet to fully stamp out racism and racial vilification.Platitudes by Minister Herron in response to a question in the Senate today and his failure to definitively express his disapproval serve only to reinforce the perception that the coalition is prepared to tolerate racial vilification. Last year it was St George-Illawarra league star Anthony Mundine and Essendon's Michael Long who were victims of racial vilification. The response by the respective leagues has not satisfactorily addressed the problem. It is totally unacceptable for racial vilification to be a part of sport, just as it should not be a part of any workplace, educational institution or other social environment.These recent events highlight how important it is to consider the relationship between sport and social issues. If sport is to be an avenue for indigenous people to achieve a level of equality in terms of participation then we must eradicate racism and prejudice at every level. How can we possibly encourage Aboriginal children to participate in organised sport and champion it as a pathway to opportunity when racism and prejudice are still rife?Sport is far more than just a fun thing to do or watch in Australia and, therefore, it must not be dealt with in policy isolation. Rather, sport is very much linked to public health, education and opportunities. The Howard-Herron approach to indigenous affairs is to treat every issue as separate and distinct, as if there is no link between the health of indigenous people and the provision of services, including sporting facilities. But there is a link—a very strong link—between indigenous health and community cohesion and social inclusion. What sport offers indigenous people, and indigenous youth in particular, is a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and, for many, a sense of place. Through sport, Aborigines, as have many young Australians, have gained respect and admiration. They have achieved a temporary empowerment too often denied to them by white Australia.Sport also offers a respite for all Australians suffering from social problems such as alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence and suicide. The breakdown of community life is a problem facing many non-indigenous and indigenous commu nities in Australia. However, violence, crime and suicide are often more rife among communities where they have fewer opportunities and facilities available. Unfortunately, too often those disadvantaged communities are indigenous communities. Recently Canberra hosted the 4th National Indigenous Sport and Recreation Conference, which examined many of the disadvantages Aboriginal and Islander communities are faced with in terms of access to sporting competitions and facilities, and general resources.Many regional centres have first-rate facilities and equipment, yet too often these facilities are being denied to Aboriginal people, either directly or in less than subtle racist overtones. The provision of sporting facilities, with adequate coaching, proper equipment and the wherewithal and ability to travel to competitions, may do far more to reduce the incidence of crime and violence than current policy approaches. For example, the Indigenous Sports Program recently held a three-on-three basketball tournament at Moree. Held over 14 weeks, it involved about 800 young people. There were no reported incidents, and anecdotal evidence suggests that antisocial behaviour and minor criminal activity in the Moree area decreased during the tournament. I recognise that sport cannot solve all of the complex problems that Australia's indigenous people contend with as a result of their treatment over the generations in Australia since white settlement, but surely some lateral thinking with respect to policy development in this area can help alleviate some of those problems.However, the positive contribution sport offers is dependent on equitable access to resources. Many young indigenous people do not have access to basic resources that allow them to participate in sporting carnivals or competitions. Often they do not have access to equipment, coaching, training or sports medicine. Many communities do not even have a football oval, swimming pool, athletic track, change rooms or trained coaches. The cost of travelling to compete or train is often insurmountable, given the vast distances in Australia's rural and regional areas. Lack of facilities is certainly an area that needs redress.Historically, Aboriginal and Islander settlements and missions were never provided with sports facilities. These settlements were not `real' communities in that they were not provided with the type of infrastructure that other Australian communities take for granted. While there have been many positive advances over recent years, lack of infrastructure remains a critical problem.Last year, a federal government committee released a report entitled Rethinking the funding of community sporting and recreational facilities: a sporting chance detailing infrastructure and funding requirements. Despite a recommendation that `disadvantaged communities should be assisted with the construction and substantial upgrade of sporting and recreational facilities', the government has in fact achieved little in this regard. Minister Kelly, rather than look at this report as a blueprint for improving disadvantaged communities, has called for yet another report. This duplication is a waste of resources and typifies why this government is not getting anything done.Finally, I want to address briefly the benefits of sport on the health of indigenous people. Aboriginal and Islander people have a life expectancy that is 15 to 20 years lower than other Australians. They are two to three times more likely to be hospitalised and the rate of diabetes, heart disease and respiratory diseases is far higher than for the rest of Australia. Australia has the dubious record of having the third highest rate of youth suicide in the world but for young indigenous Australians the rate is about 20 times higher. This appalling situation can, at the very least, be addressed by ensuring, as one angle, that Aboriginal communities are provided with opportunities to participate in sporting activities that offer a tangible benefit and outcome.Sport consumes a great deal of time and energy. It involves other members of the community in various activities and it creates jobs and employment opportunities, as well as having a profound and substantial volunteer base within the community. There is also mounting evidence that suggests that Abo riginal suicide is worse during football `off seasons' and in those communities without strong and established sporting infrastructures. At a more functional level, sport and recreation can alleviate common medical problems. For example, diabetes is afflicting people in record numbers, yet diabetes can be relieved through physical activity and diet. (Time expired)368219:40:003682Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If only the parliament as a whole had the social conscience and awareness of Senator Lundy, I think we would have a far better outcome for the nation. I draw to the Senate's attention some reaction to the lovely little book which I distributed in the Senate a week or two ago called Forest-Friendly Building Timbers . You will remember that this was a booklet which explains to people how they can build their houses, put up a picket fence, fix the chook house and do any number of things through buying timbers which come from plantations and not from our native forests. This book was produced by Earth Garden Books, a little ethical production group in Victoria. It has been endorsed by, and is being distributed through, BBC Hardware—and that is a feather in their hat—a chain selling wood right around this country.Today, however, the empire has fought back. The woodchip corporations, no doubt through the National Association of Forest Industries, a multimillion dollar funded industry lobby group, have issued a letter to the producers of the booklet and—after a two-page dissertation from their lawyers—have demanded that the book be withdrawn from circulation; if not, they are threatening to seek an injunction from the Federal Court tomorrow. This is so typical of the big woodchip corporations in this country. They are in the business of slapsuits so that they silence legitimate debate in this country about an issue which is before this parliament at the moment.The letter that is sent on behalf of the National Association of Forest Industries claims there are inflammatory comments in the booklet but is itself full of inflammatory comments. It comprehensively fails to come up with any fact in the book which is wrong. The closest it gets—because this is the only place it uses figures—is in its claim No. 3 where it says that the book says on page 10:. . . that less than 18% of native timber logging of an old growth coupe in East Gippsland ends up at the sawmill.NAFI says:In fact, currently two thirds of the logs harvested in East Gippsland end up at sawmills.So they confuse deliberately what is happening in one coupe and a claim made about that with what is happening across a broadacre area of country.It is typical of this big cartel, which is smashing down our forests and making billions of dollars at it, to come back with this sort of reaction to stifle comment and debate in this country. It is a dreadful reaction, and I only hope that the producers of the booklet and those who are being threatened by this untoward action stand their ground. If there is anybody listening to this who wants to get a copy of the book, they need only ring my office and I will do my best to see that they get one as part of the dissemination of legitimate information in the debate leading up to the Regional Forest Agreement legislation, which is before the Senate.I will not be taking legal action against a source of information which is before the Senate and which is wrong. It comes from the forest industries and it misleads senators trying to work out what to do about the Regional Forest Agreement legislation, which I maintain should be thrown out. Earlier this month, all senators were approached through the mail by the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon. He forwarded to them a document from Forestry Tasmania—the former Forestry Commission of Tasmania—in which a series of claims were made about facts and figures on national forest issues. It was in reaction to what Deputy Premier Lennon says was the recent inquiry into the Regional Forest Agreement. He is referring there to the Senate inquiry, which he appeared before. It turns out that the document he supplied to senators is riddled with factual errors.We are not talking about opinions here; we are talking about real errors. For example, on the page dealing with imports and exports, and this is the major issue in the document, the claim is made by Forestry Tasmania and the Deputy Premier that the imports of broadleaved or hardwood sawn timbers is 195,600 cubic metres. In fact, it is 59,000 cubic metres, an error of 300 per cent. The value claimed in this document—I ask senators to keep this in mind because the document will be in your offices—of the imports of broadleaved or hardwood sawn timbers for 1997-98 is $1.405 billion. In fact, it is $51 million. That is an error of many hundreds of per cent. The document says that the value of exports is $275.3 million but in fact it is $15 million. The volume of exports, as stated in this document from the Deputy Premier and Forestry Tasmania, is 10,400 cubic metres. In fact, it is 17,240 cubic metres. The mistakes go on and on.This document repeatedly refers to the figures as if they encompass hardwood logging—that is, logging of old-growth forests—but in fact they include plantations. The document is loaded to give figures which would impress the reader with the need for cutting into native forests as against plantations when in fact they are loaded in the opposite direction when it comes to figures dealing with softwood plantations in Tasmania. We get to the point at the back of the document where it claims that 120 jobs have been created since the Regional Forest Agreement in Tasmania. What it fails to say is that 240 jobs have been lost—shed out of the industry. So twice as many jobs have been lost as this document claims have been created. It is a misleading, disreputable and fault-filled document.Senator Abetz interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You do not have to take my word on that, Senator Abetz—objecting from opposite.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I never would.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—In the parliament the Deputy Premier of Tasmania was challenged by my colleague the Green MP, member for Denison, Peg Putt. Last Thursday in the Tasmanian parliament, the Deputy Premier had to get to his feet and agree that there were errors in this document. His final paragraph says:I will just read the figures into the Hansard . . .That is the figures correcting his errors. He then goes through a list of figures, many of which I have just given to the Senate. At the end he says:So, I apologise to the House.Forestry Tasmania, in writing to the Deputy Premier, begins its letter:I regret to inform you there is an error in the information provided to you . . .And so on. Those misleading figures were given to every member of this Senate. In the parliament, under questioning by the Greens, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania had to apologise and withdraw the figures, which are wrong. But has any senator received that apology from the Deputy Premier of Tasmania or Forestry Tasmania? Has there been any move to correct the misleading information sent to every office in this Senate? The fact is there has not been any such move. The Deputy Premier of Tasmania is knowingly leaving the incorrect facts with the senators whom he has lobbied in this place. I ask: what level of behaviour is that? This is a studied effort to mislead senators as they make up their minds about important legislation before this place. It will be left to me to write to senators to correct the record.368419:50:003684Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—At 3 a.m. on a quiet morning 10 days ago on 22 March, the Moora River flooded the town of Moora. No-one escaped from that flood. It was the result of a rain-bearing depression, the residue of Cyclone Elaine, that had travelled and dumped its load of water on the headwaters of the Moora River. There were 1,800 residents evacuated from that wheat belt town, which is 180 kilometres north from the capital, Perth.It is not unusual for Western Australia to be subject to cyclonic rains and damage. Nonetheless, when a whole town of that nature is evacuated, there are many heart-rending stories to tell. I do not propose to go through them tonight in the limited time available to me. But, unless one has been involved in an emergency and a catastrophe of those proportions, one cannot begin to understand the terror of rising flood waters in the darkness, with no electricity, at 3 a.m.The RAAF evacuated a lot of people from Moora, and great credit must go to those people who operated the rescue helicopters and other evacuation vehicles under the most trying of circumstances. Cyclone Elaine, which caused the damage on that morning, was exacerbated later in the day by the cyclone further north that was greater than Cyclone Tracy which hit Darwin. The wind forces were measured at over 300 kilometres per hour and officially—that is, at weather stations—at 267 kilometres an hour.In 24 hours, Western Australia—its State Emergency Service and others—had two cyclones to contend with, one of which was the greatest force of any wind ever measured in Australia. To the credit of the Prime Minister, he travelled last week to Exmouth, which was devastated by severe tropical Cyclone Vance, and assessed the situation with the Premier of Western Australia. He gave a promise of immediate aid, involving $5 million from the state coffers and $5 million from the Commonwealth. The people of Exmouth are exceedingly grateful, not just for the donation of money but for the presence of the Prime Minister, who gave them some heart and some hope for their damaged future.One of the most poignant examples of the danger with respect to severe tropical Cyclone Vance was that one couple put their 12-month-old baby in an old ammunition tin, a steel tin, and sheltered her from those tremendous winds. Unless anyone has been involved in that sort of situation, as I said, I do not believe you can understand the terror of the wind. It is seemingly never ending. When it does end, it is false, because it is only one side of the cyclone passing and you are in the eye of it. Minutes after that, it starts again and the other side of the cyclone starts. The terror is something that I have lived through, and I empathise and sympathise with those people who went through that awful period—both through Cyclone Elaine with the floods and severe tropical Cyclone Vance with those tremendously high winds.Offshore rigs were evacuated. The biggest and heaviest port in terms of tonnage in the world, Port Hedland, was evacuated. Big ships went out to sea. The iron ore towns were shut down. I might mention that in this case what is bad for Western Australia in that area is bad for the nation. Western Australia produces 26 per cent of national export income, a great deal of which comes from the iron ore and the goldfields so tragically affected by those tropical storms.There are other groups of people that do not ask for handouts, that are very independent, that do not seek assistance unless it is under the most extraordinary conditions. I talk of pastoralists. There were many pastoralists in the destructive line of Vance who were destroyed completely. Homesteads were gone. Sheds collapsed on their aircraft. Six motorbikes were lost in one station because a shed collapsed on them—and what that did not damage the floods completed. Roofs were taken off. Hundreds and hundreds of kilometres of fences are gone. Sheep have dissipated.On one station at Mindaroo a helicopter went out with the State Emergency Service. The fellow on one side of the helicopter said he counted 10 sheep. The fellow on the other side said with a smile on his face, `No, you are wrong. There are more than that. I counted 12.' That was from 40,000 sheep. I do not doubt they will find some more sheep.Some of the stations which need assistance include: Bullara, Exmouth Gulf, Giralia—a great tourist resort which has been destroyed completely, a station which was pioneered by the grandparents of Denver Blake, with the third and fourth generation of his people there now—Koodarie, Marrilla, Middalya, Minnie Creek, Nyang, Towera, Wandagee and Winning. You might remember, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan—not that you are a gambling man—that Winning used to have a great picnic meeting there.Senator George Campbell interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—You might have been up there too, Senator Campbell. Not only is the Winning Station gone but the whole of that picnic racecourse is gone as well. The destruction is unbelievable.I flew up there last Friday—to Carnarvon—on a scheduled flight. I hired a light plane—a 172, which some people call a motorised glider. But they were the only things we could land on some of these flooded station strips with. Anything else, being too heavy, would have been bogged. Of 10 or 12 stations that we flew over, I was able to land at only two. I took bread and papers with me, which was totally inadequate, I know. But where we could not land I dropped bread and a rolled-up paper out of the window. People were thankful for that when they spoke to us on the two-way radio in the light aircraft. Winsome and Michael Hearman are from Widdalya. Michael, who is 60-odd and thinking about retiring this year, picked me up in a four-wheel drive after coming five or six kilometres to the first dry land we could land on. Going back in the cab he said, `Ross, thank God you have not left us out here to die.' I was quite touched by that. It is not often that anything brings a lump to my throat, but that certainly did. They do not want handouts but they do need assistance.I do not know why Senator George Campbell should find the situation so funny. It is not funny; it is a tragic situation. They have 23,000 sheep mustered in their holding paddocks. The fences are gone. The windmills are gone. Of 27 windmills—all unserviceable—23 windmills are gone. There is nothing we can do with them in terms of money at this stage, but I make this point in the few seconds available to me. It is the worst situation I have ever seen in my 30-odd years associated with the outback and the north-west of Western Australia. They are good people. They do not just deserve assistance; they deserve the sympathy and the empathy of this house.20:00:003685Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents36853685The following government documents were tabled: Commonwealth Government of Australia—Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1998.Higher education funding for the 1999-2001 triennium—Report by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Housing Assistance Act 1996 —Report for 1996-97 on the operation of 1996 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.Judge Advocate General—Report for 1997.Productivity Commission—Report—No. 4—Nursing home subsidies, 13 January 1999.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Export Control Act—Export Meat Amendment Orders 1999 (No. 1).Migration Act—Statement for period 1 July to 31 December 1998 under subsection 33(2).3686The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 30 December 1998—Statements of compliance—Australian Electoral Commission.Answers to Questions on Notice3687The following answers to questions were circulated:3687(Question No. 249)2493687Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Worthington Di Marzio.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the context.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, short-list or some other process).3687Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that no contracts have been provided to Worthington Di Marzio by my Department or portfolio agencies since March 1996.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable.3687(Question No. 265)2653687Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd. since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process). 3687Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised of the following details in relation to contracts provided to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996(1) & (2) No contracts have been provided directly to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996. However, this company was a sub-contractor to the film Burson Marstellar, which was awarded a contract by my Department through a selective tendering process conducted by the Office of Government Information and Advertising, to provide public relations advice to the Australian Firearms Buy Back campaign.(3) Not applicable.(4) As per (1) above.3687(Question No. 281)2813687Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What contracts has the department or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Canberra Liaison since March 1996.(2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Canberra Liaison.(3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract.(4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short-list or some other process).3687Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised of the following details in relation to contracts provided to Canberra Liaison since March 1996:(1) & (2) No contracts have been provided directly to Canberra Liaison since March 1996. However, this company was a sub-contractor to the firm Burson Marstellar, which was awarded a contract by my Department through a selective tendering process conducted by the Office of Government Information and Advertising, to provide public relations advice to the Australian Firearms Buy Back campaign.(3) Not applicable.(4) As per (1) above.3688(Question No. 313)3133688Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:With reference to the past practice in which the Prime Minister has supplied answers across portfolios relating to the employment of departmental liaison officers (DLOs):(1) What is the standard allocation of DLOs per portfolio minister and per non-portfolio minister and parliamentary secretary.(2) In each instance how many DLOs have been allocated to each minister and parliamentary secretary.(3) In each instance what are the responsibilities of each DLO, where allocated on account of a major agency etc.(4) Which ministers have been allocated escort officers and how many.(5) Which ministers have staff undergoing short-term developmental experience in the offices of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, for example, Graduate Administrative Assistants, and how many.(6) What are the number of staff from the department and Cabinet's Parliamentary Liaison Office assisting the Leader of the House and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.3688Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The standard allocation is two DLOs for portfolio ministers, and one for non-portfolio ministers and parliamentary secretaries. There are exceptions to the standard allocation, usually where a minister has responsibility for more than one major agency, either within the portfolio or another portfolio, or for times of peak activity requiring additional liaison.(2) See Table 1 (attached) for DLOs currently allocated.(3) The DLOs have responsibility for facilitating liaison between the minister and the department or agency in relation to administrative and policy matters. The range of duties varies depending on the level and skills of the DLO, as well as on the work priorities of the minister's office and department or agency from time to time.(4) Consistent with past practice, the Minister for Defence, the Hon John Moore, MP, and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, the Hon Bruce Scott, MP, have each been allocated one escort officer.(5) Consistent with past practice, public servants may undertake short-term developmental opportunities in ministers' offices. The Office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs regularly takes a placement from the Department of Veterans' Affairs' Graduate Administrative Assistant program.(6) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provides four staff in the parliamentary liaison role. One parliamentary liaison officer (PLO) and an assistant to the PLO are made available in the House of Representatives and the Senate.TABLE 1:DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON OFFICERS AS AT 9 MARCH 1999ABBOTT1ABETZ1ALSTON2ANDERSON2ANTHONY1BISHOP1CAMPBELL1COSTELLO3DOWNER3ELLISON1ENTSCH1FAHEY2FISCHER2HEFFERNAN1 HERRON2HILL2HOCKEY1HOWARD2KELLY1KEMP, D3KEMP, R2MACDONALD2*MCGAURAN1MINCHIN2MOORE2NEWMAN3PATTERSON1REITH2RUDDOCK2SCOTT2SLIPPER1STONE1SULLIVAN1TAMBLING1TROETH1TRUSS2TUCKEY1VAILE2VANSTONE3WILLIAMS2WOOLDRIDGE2WORTH1* includes one part-time position used in Parliamentary sittings periods3689(Question No. 490)4903689Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:Of the employees of the former Department of Administrative Services who were retained within the Commonwealth Public Service but not by the newly constituted department, to which departments were they transferred.3689Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Employees of the Australian Valuation Office transferred to the Australian Taxation Office within the Treasury Portfolio. Employees of the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group, the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories and the Ionospheric Prediction Service transferred to the former Department of Industry, Science and Tourism. Employees of the Awards and National Symbols Branch transferred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.3689(Question No. 491)4913689Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:In the 1997-98 financial year, into which areas and/or practices were the 28 probity reviews conducted by the department.3689Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The probity reviews of Departmental activities were conducted with the objective of achieving consistent best practice in all areas of Departmental procurement. In particular, the probity reviews were undertaken in the following areas and/or practices:. outsourcing of functions;. significant consulting contracts;. selection and implementation of new IT systems; and. seeking of tenders or letting of contracts.3690(Question No. 492)4923690Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:What changes to the procedures for the engagement of consultants and contractors were made by the department as a consequence of the audit and probity reviews conducted in the 1997-98 financial year.3690Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:With the amalgamation of the former Departments of Finance and Administrative Services there were some practices in the former Department of Administrative Services that were changed and these included :. consultants would be generally selected through a formal tender process with these processes being the subject of probity reviews;. standard long form contracts would be used rather than the short form contracts and the contracts would be reviewed by legal practitioners; and. non-standard clauses (termination and payments in lieu etc) would not be permitted in new contracts.3690(Question No. 497)4973690Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) In the 1997-98 financial year, what arose out of the department's business risk assessment that was used as the basis for the department's Fraud Control Plan. (2) Did the business risk assessment make recommendations; if so, were all of the recommendations implemented.3690Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The business risk assessment was used as a basis for the development of the Department's Fraud Control Plan. All high/major risk activities identified have been included in that plan.(2) No recommendations were made.3690(Question No. 554)5543690Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual budgeting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total department expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.3690Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $158,000(2) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was not one of the agencies which participated in the trial run for accrual accounting in financial year 1997-98. A specific budget for accrual accounting was therefore not developed for 1997-98 and expenditure was made from funds set aside for the ongoing financial management of the department. (3) (a) No firms or individuals were engaged to provide consultancy services in this field in the 1997-98 financial year.(b) See above.(4) (a) See above (b) See above (c) See above(5) (a) $312,000 (b) $270,000(6) $3,667,0003691(Question No. 566)5663691Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.3691Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $530,074.56.(2) $2,108.00.3692(Question No. 575)5753692Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.3692Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) From the formation of the Department of Finance and Administration in October 1997, the cost of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department for the 1997-98 financial year was approximately $4.1 million.(2) From the formation of the Department of Finance and Administration in October 1997, the cost of legal advice obtained from other sources for the 1997-98 financial year was approximately $2.2 million.