1999-04-293912SENATE451501999-04-29The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.451510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:4515613I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled;The Petition of the undersigned shows that participants in a symposium marking the Twentieth Anniversary of the foundation of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) and its 1999 Annual General Meeting wish to express their opposition to the introduction of legislation that will be destructive to the Council and to postgraduate organisations generally.We have gathered to celebrate the history of the Nation's Peak postgraduate representative organisation. We express our heartfelt hope that the Senate shall act in a way that preserves the future of postgraduate representation in Australia.Your Petitioners request that the Senate opposes legislation that will introduce national Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU)/Anti-Student Organisation Legislation (ASOL).Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 61 citizens)Petition received.Committees45154515451509:31:004515Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I give notice that 15 days after today Senator O'Chee shall move:That the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safeguards Regulations 1999, as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 37 and made under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 , be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safeguards Regulations 1999 Statutory Rules 1999 No.37The Committee has a number of concerns with these Regulations, including possible invalid subdelegation of legislative power, a declaration that is not required to be tabled in Parliament, a discretion with no indication whether it is subject to merits review and membership and reporting requirements of a statutory council and committees which may be inadequate. The committee has written to the minister for advice.Notices45154515Senator Knowles to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 13 May 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999.4515Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 208 standing in his name for today, relating to indigenous education, be postponed till 11 May 1999.Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be postponed till 26 May 1999.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 178 standing in his name for today, relating to superannuation pension benefits for members of parliament, be postponed till 26 May 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 136 (relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services) and no. 206 (indigenous education) standing in her name for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business45154515Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day.No. 2— Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999No. 3— Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 19984516Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business notice of motion No. 205 standing in the name of Senator Carr relating to the opening of the Olympic Games; and(2) Consideration of government documents.Notices45164516Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 209 standing in his name for today, relating to internet gambling, be postponed till 24 May 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison, also at the request of Senator Margetts) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the names of Senators Allison and Margetts for today, relating to the disallowance of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 40, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ellison) for today, relating to the consideration of legislation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous4516Motion (by Senator Heffernan, also on behalf of Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 26 April 1999 marked the thirteenth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine, (ii) the effects of the disaster continue to affect the lives of many Ukrainians and that in the past decade, there has been a real, significant increase in childhood and, to a certain extent, adult carcinoma of the thyroid, and (iii) the Australian Chernobyl Children Relief Foundation (Inc) works diligently in seeking moral and financial support in assisting sufferers and manages a number of projects based in the Ukraine that provide direct assistance to children and other sufferers;(b) supports the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations in assisting the work of the foundation;(c) urges all governments to plan and act responsibly to ensure we leave an environment that is clean, healthy and balanced for generations to come; and(d) urges the Parliament to ensure that Australia, through medical research and direct aid, continues to maintain its record as a nation sensitive to the needs of sufferers, wherever they may be, and a nation that understands the importance of being at the forefront of international relations.Miscellaneous4516Motion (by Senator Woodley, also on behalf of Senator Crossin) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the initiative taken by the Council of Churches in Darwin to conduct a community forum on the subject of the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws, (ii) that these laws have proved an embarrassment to the Northern Territory Government, and (iii) that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory (Mr Burke) has announced in the media that he will move amendments to relax these mandatory sentencing laws; and(b) urges the Northern Territory Government to abandon its mandatory sentencing laws altogether.Miscellaneous451645164516Motion (by Senator Carr) proposed:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the Government has continued to fail to adequately respond to estimates questions put on notice in 1999, namely, that on 24 March 1999, the closing date for answers to questions on notice relating to the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, only 131 answers had been received to a total of 256 questions on notice, and (ii) that 32 questions on notice from the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee additional estimates hearings, continue to be outstanding more than one month past the closing date for answers; and(b) condemns the contemptuous attitude of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) in reflecting the Government's appalling attitude towards the Parliament and its committee.09:37:004517Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—Our understanding from the whips meeting, and we have not been advised to the contrary, was that this matter would be deferred for a day. If that is the indication we are given, then we do not seek to create a position on it. It would be deeply appreciated if this matter could be deferred as that was the indication we were given.09:38:004517O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I was at the whips meeting. I was not sure of the position on this matter. I said that I thought it would be deferred but to leave it in the list on the basis that I was not sure. That is the indication I gave at the whips meeting. If it has been taken to be more firm than that, I apologise, but I certainly did not seek to mislead. Senator Carr may well be prepared to adjourn.09:38:004517Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—On the same matter, in the spirit of what the manager has just said, if the Senate would give leave to deal with this matter as a formal motion tomorrow—which would not ordinarily be the case—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Do it today.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—In the spirit of what the manager says, we would be happy to deal with it tomorrow if leave would be granted to deal with it. It will not take a moment, but I am just trying to assist the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous4517Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Committees45174517451709:41:004517Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 1999:Whether the Native Title Act 1993 , as amended, is consistent with:(a) Australia's international legal obligations, in particular the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and(b) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , and the principles underlying it.Madam President, this is an important issue and one that should be of concern to the Senate. What we are talking about here goes not just to legislation passed by this place—legislation of domestic impact—but also to this country's international reputation. Also its ramifications go to the fabric of our society. It goes to the issue of the Prime Minister's much heralded 10-point plan of legislation which was debated in the Senate less than a year ago, and it goes to what the rest of the world sees as the impact of that legislation.The 10-point plan was legislation that was widely condemned at the time of its introduction because it was basically legislation that overrode the views, wishes and interests of indigenous Australians. It was widely condemned at home because it was unfair and, we believe, discriminatory.Those who argued very strongly against that legislation—indigenous Australians—felt that they had found no justice at home, so what they did was to seek justice abroad. This is not the first time it has happened, but it has to be of concern to all of us that this is part of an increasing trend. It is an increasing trend because many Australians now do not find a degree of fairness, fair go or justice from their national government. As a consequence, they are pursuing their rights and interests in the international forum.Those who think that this debate is over, that the issue will be put to bed this morning if it does not get up, and that it will go away, should realise that they have something else coming to them. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has already indicated that Australia is on notice that it will maintain a watching brief in respect to our response to their decision and our response to the needs of indigenous Australians.The government may have told them not to come to Australia; the government may have told them that our doors are closed to international concern; and the government may have told them that it would not welcome a visit. But I think it is fair to say that they will maintain an interest and keep on maintaining that interest as part of a growing body of international organisations that have concerns in respect of how Australia is performing, not just on indigenous matters, but also—as we know from debates in recent weeks—in respect of broader matters of cultural and environmental concern.Once again we have hit the international headlines in a matter that is no good for our international reputation and in fact tarnishes that international reputation. This time it was the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its 54th session between 1 and 19 March that considered Australia's Native Title Act. Acting under its early warning procedures, the committee adopted a decision in respect to Australia, requesting information from Australia regarding three areas of concern: the proposed changes to the 1993 Native Title Act; changes of policy in respect to Aboriginal land rights; and changes in the position or functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. They were the matters that the committee embarked upon overviewing on 11 August 1998.The committee in its deliberations welcomed the full and thorough reply of the Australian government. The Attorney-General himself in press statement after press statement indicated that he thought Australia was getting fair treatment and had an opportunity to put its case comprehensively to the committee.It is also important to place on record that the committee received similarly detailed and useful comments from the Acting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. They got advice from ATSIC and there was advice from members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The committee undertook a broad assessment of Australia's practices in this area. They indicated their concern that:. . . the effects of Australia's racially discriminatory land practices have endured as an acute impairment of the rights of Australia's indigenous communities.That is the historical fact that they recognise in their decision. They also went on to recognise the importance of the Mabo decision. Mabo was a decision that ensured, for the first time, a rejection of the concept of terra nullius and an acceptance of the survival of indigenous title to land where such title had previously not been recognised. The committee also welcomed that the Native Title Act 1993 provided a framework for the continued recognition of indigenous land rights following the precedent established in the Mabo case. The committee then went on to look at the 1993 act and compare it, most importantly, to the 1998 act. Having considered the amendments moved by the government to the 1993 act, they expressed concern over the compatibility of the government's amendments with the state party's—Australia's—international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. They said:While the original Native Title Act recognizes and seeks to protect indigenous title, provisions that extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests pervade the amended Act.The committee went on to say:While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced between the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended Act appears to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title.It comes as no surprise to those who took part in the debate in this place and those who followed it that there were four areas of major concern that the committee had in respect of the government's 10-point plan. There were four areas where the committee felt that the government's legislation acted in a racially discriminatory manner against indigenous Australians, and the committee listed them:These include: the Act's "validation" provisions; the "confirmation of extinguishment" provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of indigenous title holders to negotiate non-indigenous land uses.These were the four areas that attracted most attention in this place during the course of that long debate. The committee, as did the previous government in 1993, recognised that there can be wind-back, but there is a capacity for the use of a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act and under the international convention which can accommodate a degree of negativeness if the overall package passed by the parliament can be seen to be positive. The committee said, of the four measures that they were concerned about:. . . appears to wind back the protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia and the 1993 Native Title Act. As such, the amended Act cannot be considered to be a special measure within the meaning of Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of the Convention and raises concerns about—Australia's compliance with articles 2 and 5 of the convention.The committee was concerned about another aspect that we were also concerned about during the course of the debate. The committee found that there was a lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments. They were concerned with respect to the Howard government's compliance with its obligations under article 5(c) of the convention. That article and the committee's general recommendations have stressed the importance of ensuring `that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life'—not just cursory or token participation, but effective participation in public life. An important principle that they hold, which is reflected in the convention, is that no decisions directly relating to indigenous people's rights and interests should be taken without their informed consent.Concern after concern is expressed by this international eminent committee on the elimination of race discrimination—concerns that in many respects reflect the concerns that indigenous Australians had during the passage of the Howard Wik 10-point plan.The committee had further concerns about the broader agenda in respect of indigenous Australians which Australia has embarked upon under the Howard government. They were concerned that Australia had proposed to change the overall structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, abolishing the position of ATSI Social Justice Commissioner and assigning those functions to a generalist deputy president. They felt there was a need for a qualified specialist to address matters affecting indigenous Australians given the continuing political, economic and social marginalisation of the indigenous community in Australia.Having made all these findings, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on Australia to take certain action. They also indicated—and this is probably the most telling of their recommendations:In light of the urgency and fundamental importance of these matters, and taking into account the willingness expressed by—Australia—to continue the dialogue with the Committee over these provisions, the Committee decides to keep this matter on its agenda under its early warning and urgent action procedures to be reviewed again at its fifty-fifth session.So there you have it—fundamentally important findings of discrimination against Australia which this committee says they will keep on their early warning system and keep a watching brief over. So the government has been put on notice, but the government, we know, will not react. The government's basic attitude to these sorts of matters is to take the view of the Prime Minister that the rest of the world is only there to play cricket against and `we won't take them into account when it comes to their views of how we perform'. But this is a short-sighted policy, a policy that basically limits Australia's role, and capacity to play a role, in international affairs.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Indonesia doesn't even have a cricket team, you dope.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Campbell, you talk about Indonesia not having a cricket team. Unfortunately, even in respect of Indonesia, the Australian government had to be dragged into implementing an action plan which was recommended by the shadow foreign minister just a few months ago.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Are you talking about Gough Whitlam?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—You could see what was going to happen in Indonesia. You had advice as to what was going to happen. Indonesian lives were endangered; Australian lives were endangered. That was part of the advice given to your cabinet, but it took a long time for Alexander to get out of bed on that one, and it took longer for the Prime Minister to trail behind him.Unfortunately for the interests of Australia worldwide at the moment, under this Prime Minister, we do not recognise that we have a role to play which, in a sense, is above our size in the world. That is affecting us here. Time after time, whether it is by the ILO, this committee or the World Heritage Committee, we are getting a reflection not just against the Howard government but against this nation. If we have got any respect for the role and the status of this nation in world affairs, and if John Howard, the Prime Minister, and Daryl Williams, the Attorney-General, are not going to take action, are not going to respond, are not going to treat people with civility, it is important for this parliament to stand up for the reputation of Australia. Senator Campbell, you may not care about it, but I tell you what: if you are doing business, if you are interacting with the rest of the world, then you are concerned about Australia's status and the respect which the rest of the world may or may not show us from time to time.What did the government do? They got this broad, condemnatory decision from the committee. It was a decision which should not have been of surprise to them, either. It was a decision which was in accordance with advice given to the government during the debate. Robert Orr, of the Wik task force, on 17 November 1997 produced an advice to government. In that private advice to government—and it is worth putting all of this on the record—he said, by way of a question time brief:On 3 February 1997, the Commonwealth received advice from Mr D F Jackson QC that legislative wholesale extinguishment of native title on all pastoral leases by either the states/territories or the Commonwealth, even with `just terms' compensation, would be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act (consistent with previous advice by the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General's Department).So the government's own external advice was basically being confirmed by the committee. But let us go on. Contact officer Robert Orr continued his brief by saying:Advice was sought from the Australian Government Solicitor on whether the 10-point plan was consistent with the RDA—let us keep in mind that the Racial Discrimination Act incorporates the international covenant into Australian law—and if not, would any of its proposals cause the RDA to be invalid as no longer supported by the constitutional external affairs power. In summary, Chief General Counsel Henry Burmester advised on 25 July 1997—that is almost two years ago—that he is of the view that in some circumstances the proposals in the 10-point plan may involve an inconsistency with the RDA or with CERD. This inconsistency arises particularly in relation to the validation regime, the confirmation regime (especially the provision for `permanent extinguishment' if this is found not to be the common law provision), and the provisions which enable rights of pastoral lessees to be enhanced at the expense of co-existing native title rights.So this international committee, charged with oversighting compliance with the international covenant on the elimination of racial discrimination, is saying what the government's own Chief General Counsel has said to this government, and also saying what the external advice said to the government. These are just two avenues of internal advice to the government. The broader advice presented to the Senate committee inquiring into this matter also confirmed that.Although the Attorney-General, on 11 March this year, said that the government took its international obligations seriously and was keen to assist the UN committee, on 16 March he said that Australia welcomed the chance to present a detailed case to the committee and had informed the committee of an extensive process of consultation. The Attorney-General began the big lie in that press statement. On the second page he said:The Australian Government's view, as advised to the Committee, is that the Government has not breached the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.He told the Australian public that the view of the government was that there was no breach of the convention, when the advice to the government from its most eminent legal sources was that the government had breached the convention. What did he do after the decision from CERD? What was the government's response then? That is reflected once again in a press statement from the Attorney-General. He said:The Committee's comments are an insult to Australia and all Australians as they are unbalanced and do not refer to the submission made by Australia on the native title issue. He is shooting the international messenger who has told him internationally what he knows and has known domestically for quite some time—that we have been, and we are, in breach of the international covenant.So the government says the committee's comments are unbalanced; it shoots the messenger and tries to reflect on the reputation and capacity of the international forum which takes a very dark view of what we have done on this matter. The Attorney-General went on to say:The Government's view, as advised to the Committee, is that Australia has not breached the Convention . . . The advice to the government from its most senior legal advisers was that we had breached the convention. That is the second lie. He went on by giving the normal, gratuitous flicks around the ears that we are used to from this government to committees like this and to the World Heritage Committee. He said:The comments by the committee are unbalanced and fail to understand Australia's system of democracy.Is he saying that Chief General Counsel Burmester failed to understand Australia's system of democracy? Is he saying that Mr Jackson QC failed to understand it? Is he saying that they are unbalanced? If that is the case, they ought to be removed from their offices of privilege in advising the government. He does not say that of those people who have given the government the same advice, but he does say that in regard to the international committee. Basically, that means that the government is not taking serious action here. The rest of the world has a continuing interest. The Guardian Weekly , just a few weeks ago, said `Washed away in a tide of white history'—one expression of international concern about how we are handling this matter at home.In closing the debate, let us put on record that the government is not taking this seriously and we should. Let us also put on record that there is a degree of resonance between the response which Mr Howard has given and the response, for instance, taken by Mr Smith in Africa quite a few years ago. The Prime Minister says, `Our official view is that Australian laws are made by Australian parliaments elected by the Australian people, not by a UN committee.' Haven't we heard that before? Haven't we heard that from an international regime that rejects international scrutiny of its domestic practices, especially when those practices are so offensive to the basic law of humanity that has been not just accepted by Australia but sponsored by Australia? The UN convention was one of those conventions that we were in the forefront of implementing internationally, but our position now basically is, `We can do at home whatever we want and the rest of the world can go jump.' In the long-term interests of Australia, we cannot afford that to be the view emanating from this parliament. It may be the view which the Prime Minister is happy with, but we should not be. (Time expired)10:01:004522Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I support the motion of Senator Bolkus and indicate the support of the Australian Democrats for it. In doing so, I will not repeat all of the issues raised by Senator Bolkus—he covered the issue very well—but there are a couple of things I want to add to the debate. The first thing I want to say is that we should congratulate those indigenous leaders who presented the case before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for their persistence, for their obvious intelligence and for the very comprehensive way in which they detailed the case. This country owes a lot to indigenous leaders who no longer—as I think was once inferred in the minds of many people in this country—need the help of white Australians in presenting these kinds of cases.Certainly in this case and in many others they are more than capable of presenting a case on their own behalf and, in this instance, not only did so on the issue which they were supporting but also did so against the very best bureaucratic advice that this government could mount on the other side. It sent its most senior bureaucrat, the person who in fact designed the native title amendment laws. He was unable, over and against the arguments put by the indigenous leaders, to convince the CERD committee of the government's position. That is very significant and those indigenous leaders who presented the case need our congratulations and our support. Obviously they were able to convince an international forum in the face of the very best bureaucratic ability that the government could mount.I would also like to indicate that individually Senator Reynolds, Mr Melham and I invited by letter—not necessarily representing our parties, but as individuals—the CERD committee to visit Australia. We are not yet sure of the status of that visit, whether or not it will happen, because once again the government does not want scrutiny of its actions or of its legislative program. I do hope that the committee will visit Australia because, even if the government believes that it is right in this particular issue, this would present the government with an opportunity to argue its case, to show how the CERD committee has got it wrong, as the government asserts. The best way to resolve that would be to have the CERD committee visit Australia and to hear both sides of the debate on the ground, face to face. I would be very surprised if the government opposes this visit because it would give the government an opportunity to present its case and would give an opportunity not only to the international forum to observe but also to all Australians to make a judgment about the arguments on both sides.I am in a way ashamed that the CERD committee found that Australia was guilty of discrimination, but not surprised. I have firmly believed all along, right from the beginning of the publishing of the 10-point plan by the Prime Minister, that that 10-point plan would work to the significant disadvantage of indigenous people. I believe that to be absolutely right, and this has now been confirmed by this international forum. The Native Title Amendment Bill, as amended and then passed by the Senate and by the House of Representatives, is undoubtedly discriminatory. I am convinced of that. I believe that, eventually, if it comes before the High Court of Australia, it will be found to be discriminatory, as has been found in this international forum. I am bemused by the way in which this government argues that some international forums should not be listened to when at the same time other international forums are not only listened to but slavishly followed to the detriment of many Australians. Of course I refer to the World Trade Organisation, before whom we grovel to the great detriment of many of the primary industries of this country. We are prepared to grovel before that international forum when it is to do with trade issues, but when it comes to human rights issues we take no notice of international forums or of their criticisms of this country.We support the motion to refer this matter to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee. I trust that it will pass, because this is another opportunity for the whole issue to be considered. It is very important that we, in the Senate and in the Legal and Constitutional References Committee, look carefully at what has been said by the CERD committee and that we revisit this issue. If we do not, it will continue to attract international criticism for as long as we allow it to be a blot on this country's previous good reputation in the area of human rights.10:08:004523Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I too rise in support of the motion moved by Senator Bolkus to refer the Native Title Act 1993, as amended in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997, to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry. I do that because, having taken considerable interest in the bill when it was debated and in the process leading up to that, I realised that a great many questions were left unanswered. One of the most instructive elements of the committee process leading up to us dealing with the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 was the fora to which some of the best silks in the country came and discussed the constitutionality. That was very stimulating. It was probably almost unprecedented to have that kind of fora dealing with a particular issue of a bill. Here we have brought up another element of the same bill—that is, whether the bill abides by Australia's international commitments.Senator Woodley is quite right when he says that the current Australian government picks and chooses which international fora it abides by. When the World Trade Organisation, or perhaps even the World Bank, says, `Jump', the Australian government says, `How high?' I guess that jumping high has come from the previous government as well, in that we not only did what we were required to do under the Uruguay Round of GATT but we went beyond that, many believe naively, on the assumption that we would benefit. That has meant considerable change in and interference with Australia's domestic laws.We have seen the introduction of national competition policy before many other countries have gone that way. We are now only just beginning to look at that. We have never in this country looked at the impact of Australia signing the Uruguay Round of GATT. We have never done that as a Senate inquiry, much to my sadness. Here we have a situation where an international body, having looked at Australia's laws in relation to the Native Title Act, have said, `In our opinion, this does not abide by Australia's international commitments.'Unfortunately, what I saw many times during the debate was throwaway lines and debating points in relation to human rights. I recall a number of comments about racial discrimination and whether the process of not allowing consultation or the right to negotiate on land was racially discriminatory. In the debate the government frequently used an argument which assumed terra nullius—that is, that the country was empty—and that Aboriginal people had to abide by the rules of leaseholders or other people who did not own the land. So we had a situation where the throwaway debating points in relation to whether the bill itself was racially discriminatory had an in-built assumption of terra nullius—the very assumption that the High Court had thrown away in saying that the country was not empty when white settlers came. This is pretty basic; it is not about throwaway lines or debating points or things that you say on a broadcast day. It is about whether in legal terms, under Australia's laws and Australia's Constitution, we are doing something in a bill which is against Australia's international obligations.The government has almost run out of international fora to abuse in recent times. We have seen issues relating to immigration, refugees, the treatment of Australia's indigenous population, the environment and uranium mining—they are almost running out of international fora to abuse. We are getting comments from other legislatures, including in Europe, Japan and the United States. Quite frankly, I think people going overseas these days would have to wear a paper bag over their head in many different fora.I am also hearing things from business people. I shared a plane with a business person—a conservative business person—who was operating a great deal in London, who said that it is getting very difficult to do business in Europe and even in Britain because of Australia's international reputation. This government seems to be mostly interested in business so they should at least be interested in the fact that we are dirtying our reputation to such an extent that people do not even want to do business with us.We should make sure that as a parliament we look into the elements of this bill and that the committee has a chance to report. We should once again invite some of the best legal minds in the country—they are usually willing to come to these interesting and historic debates to find out what the issues really are. We do not just want debating points or throwaway lines. We want to find out what the weight of opinion says so that we can best deal with this issue in the future. Quite clearly, the Greens (WA) support this motion. I would like to think the government is prepared to look at it as well. Either way, I hope this motion gets majority support in the parliament.10:14:004524Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise today to support my colleague's motion in relation to the Native Title Act and the decision of the United Nations committee. I think we have to be mindful when we sit in chambers such as this that laws that we pass are not always perfect and do not always encompass the intent or the purpose. They are there for scrutiny and, if we ever believe for one minute that we pass laws that are to stay there in concrete, then we are doing a disservice to the people we serve. Those laws are there to be tested and to be tried in courts. In a way I believe that the United Nations is another form of this process of checks and balances in which our laws can be put up and examined.All Australians should be particularly concerned about this decision. We are in an era of reconciliation. We are in an era when we are trying to teach our children and when we encourage the idea, even amongst our own peers, that discrimination is not a good thing, that it is something you do not do, that it is something you should be embarrassed to do. We now have, on a broader scale, an international body which is closely watching and monitoring laws of other countries but more so Australia in the last three years. It has come up with a decision that we now should take note of. We should be forging the way here and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. It seems that we have gone mightily backwards in the last three years when a United Nations committee has made a decision that the Native Title Act is in breach of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.This convention was actually signed in 1966 under a Holt Liberal government. It was ratified in 1975. So this convention has actually been looked at by governments of Australia twice. We have signed up and then ratified the convention—over a long period of years now. I am going back 23 years, so it is something that we have been committed to for quite a while. The committee has decided on and issued an unambiguous statement, I think, that this government is committing racial discrimination. They say that we are in breach of articles 2 and 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.Aboriginal people in this country have welcomed a decision and statement by an international body, the United Nations committee. They have been pressing this government for many years to try to make some positive moves towards consulting with them, to listening to them, to sitting down and trying to understand where they want to go. But they have to look to an international forum to get the recognition they want. On the very day that the United Nations committee handed down this decision, ATSIC put out a press release saying that indigenous people of Australia welcome the CERD findings. In my own electorate of the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people are talking about this—such as occurred two weeks ago in Broome and Kununurra. They are not excited about it, they are not happy that they have had to go outside this country to try to find the kind of recognition and realisation that what is happening to them is not right. But they are pleased that somebody is taking notice.This government is not pleased that somebody is taking notice. In fact, this government is embarrassed. This government does not want to know about the United Nations decisions. Last year we saw this government push through the laws for the Native Title Act. As Senator Margetts said, we had discussions about whether this act would be discriminatory. We had comments about it. The comments were either fobbed off or we were reassured that the act was not discriminatory.A couple of weeks ago, the Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, in their submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, said that they had reservations about the processes that this parliament undertakes. They were specifically talking about the operation of this joint parliamentary committee. In their submission they made a reference to the United Nations CERD decision. In particular, they wanted to emphasise recommendation XIII which stressed the importance of ensuring `that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent'.They raised that in the context of the joint parliamentary committee, because they are saying that the committee is only being seen to happen; it takes submissions from Aboriginal people, from pastoralists and companies but it really does not change the substance of the act or the position of this government. So it is almost like a token consultation. So they looked to the United Nations for confirmation of this and they got it. They got the United Nations saying, `That is right. We believe that the actions of this government do not take notice of your effective participation and do not bother to get your consent when forming their laws.'So let us have a look at why people—and particularly Aboriginal people—believe that the legislation is in breach of the international convention. It does not protect the land ownership of Aboriginal people. It is clearly the instrument which increases the legal ownership rights over land held by non-Aboriginal parties such as pastoralists. It increases the other land ownership rights, to the corresponding detriment of the Aboriginal peoples. And in all instances where invalid titles occur through duplication of ownership, it prefers the interests in land of non-Aboriginal people over the interests of Aboriginal people. It manifestly interferes with Aboriginal landowners' rights to negotiate their interests over their land and it does not have the informed consent of Aboriginal peoples.I am calling on this government to take urgent action to redress this situation and to give close scrutiny to whether or not this legislation is racially discriminatory. I do not see that there is a problem with that. As I said earlier, we do make laws, and laws are not always perfect. Perhaps it is time to actually sit back and say, `Well, let's have a look at this. We have had Aboriginal people who are not happy with it. We now have a decision of the United Nations.' I think the government are paying a high price for this folly; a very high price for their blindness and their unwillingness to say, `Perhaps there is a problem here.' The price is, of course, their international reputation. As I said, they signed up and ratified this convention twice, and they have now broken their word.Since the decision of the United Nations committee has come down, this government has sought to question the legitimacy of the United Nations committee's decision. Coming from the Northern Territory, I would have to say it is shades of Kakadu and Jabiluka here. If the decision does not actually fall over the line for us, we turn around and say, `You people really aren't experts after all and perhaps you don't really know what you are talking about.' Unlike Jabiluka, where the excuse was that they are not really scientists and they do not know what they are doing, in this case the excuse is, `You don't understand how Australian law operates.' This committee does understand what racial discrimination is, it does understand about the needs of indigenous people and it certainly understands what it means to actually talk to, listen to and consult with these people and have their consent.As Senator Bolkus mentioned earlier, the government's own Chief General Counsel, Henry Burmester, advised this government on 25 July 1997. He said:. . . in some circumstances the proposals in the 10-point plan may involve an inconsistency with the Racial Discrimination Act or CERD. This inconsistency arises particularly in relation to the validation regime, the confirmation regime . . . and the provisions which enable rights of pastoral lessees to be enhanced at the expense of coexisting native title rights.In supporting this recommendation Australians, and particularly indigenous Australians, are now entitled to know whether this government has enacted a law which has subsequently been found to be discriminatory or whether they blatantly knew all along that it was discriminatory and they did so knowing this. I think we all have a right to know the answer to that. The fundamental moral obligation of all Australian governments is not to discriminate on the basis of race. This Native Title Act has been found to be racially discriminatory by the United Nations, and it may well be confirmed to be so by this Senate inquiry. I call on the government to change its law and to make sure that it complies with both our international and our moral obligations.10:26:004526Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I want to support this motion by Senator Bolkus. I believe it is appropriate for the Legal and Constitutional References Committee of the Senate to look very closely at the UN decision and to report back to the Senate. I was disappointed last week when what I considered to be a relatively mild motion was defeated in this place. In that motion I asked that the Senate express its grave concern about the CERD report. The Senate did not agree with that. Yet, as other speakers have said, how can the Senate not be concerned that the international law making body, the United Nations, has found that there are questions to answer about whether or not we are upholding the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination? We should be concerned, and that is all the first part of my original motion was saying.Secondly, if we are concerned, we should have been prepared to deal with this issue. This issue has not come before the Senate on the initiative of the government. It has not come before the House of Representatives on the initiative of the government. It has been brought up only by opposition members in this place. I think the government should demonstrate that it has some concern and some plan as to how it is going to respond. Thirdly, I ask the government to reopen discussions with representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. That is not a very radical proposition, I would have thought. Sooner or later someone is going to have to talk and someone is going to have to resolve this concern. The government cannot hide from it.Finally, the Senate could have invited the United Nations committee to visit Australia and look at the issues first-hand. The government apparently is not going to invite the committee. The committee no doubt will not come in a formal sense if the government has not invited it, but there is no doubt that the committee members will visit in their own right and will talk with Aboriginal people, will talk with all those many hundreds of people who contacted them in the months leading to their deliberations. The chair of the committee said in his comments after the hearing that the expressions of concern and the numbers of submissions received from Australia and from ordinary Australians were unprecedented, and still the government refuses to take this matter seriously.What will happen in the processes if we do not make a response between now and August? That will be reported to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York in a session later this year, some time in November or December. Is that what we want? Is that what our diplomats want? Is that what the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister want? Do we really want the issue aired in the General Assembly that we have been found wanting in upholding the racial discrimination convention? Are we not prepared to even talk about it?It is a head in the sand attitude by the government because sooner or later they will have to address this. Sooner or later they will have to talk with Aboriginal people. Sooner or later they will have to confront this issue, if necessary, in the courts because the finding of the CERD committee gives enormous weight to the legal arguments that have been put on behalf of indigenous people. For the government to just try to hide and say, `Aboriginal people shouldn't go overseas airing dirty linen in public,' is nonsense. Indigenous people and spokespeople for indigenous people have been going overseas to complain about Australia's treatment of indigenous people for over a hundred years. There are any number of examples of people taking their concern about the treatment of indigenous people outside Australia simply because they could not get action in this country. Back in colonial society days, the Anti-Slavery Society was expressing concern about the way indigenous people were being treated in this country, so there is nothing new about indigenous people and/or their supporters and advocates expressing concern in the international community.What else do you do? If you cannot get action at home, you have to appeal outside. Look at what has happened in other countries. We take it for granted, when human rights abuses are not being addressed within countries, that activists and spokespeople will make appeals outside to make them international issues. If we do not want the rights of indigenous people to be an international issue, we have to deal with this issue at home. We could deal with it at home simply if government learned to talk with indigenous people and learned to compromise instead of just bulldozing through and assuming that a piece of legislation can wipe off the planet the rights of indigenous people. If these were your property rights, Mr Acting Deputy President, or mine we would find that there would be absolute uproar if they were just—at the stroke of a pen through a piece of legislation—taken from us.Gay McDougall, the committee expert who served as country rapporteur for the situation in Australia, said that indigenous land rights were unique and `encompassed a traditional and cultural connection to the land that had been recognised in international law'. That is a fact. Governments might not like it but it is a fact. Governments have to deal with it unless they want to cut themselves off completely from the international community. She said the international community now understood that doctrines of dispossession were `illegitimate and racist'.We do not like the word `racist' and I agree that it can be bandied around as a term of abuse indiscriminately, if you will forgive the poor attempt at a pun, and I do not believe in calling people or governments `racist'. But the reality is that international law has shown that doctrines of dispossession are illegitimate and racist whether we like that term or not. It is like the term `genocide'. People get very upset about it and say, `No, we weren't ever involved in genocide.' We were—literally—and the fact that we do not like the word is irrelevant. The government policy in the past to systematically remove Aboriginal children from their families and culture was a form of genocide and that is a fact, just as the doctrines of dispossession are racist.One of these days this government—and indeed future governments—will have to come to terms with it; they will have to deal with it. People in this country will demand it; the international community will demand it. Ms McDougall noted that the delegation had said several times that `the Australian government believed that it could not go back and cure the injustices of the past'. She said she could see some merit in that view—she is a reasonable person—but what concerned her was that the validation and confirmation of extinguishment provisions in the amended act, that is, the Wik legislation, did not apply to the distant past; they appeared to apply to actions that in some cases had taken place as recently as 1994 and 1996. She said she would welcome a discussion within the committee about how experts might continue their urgent deliberations on Australia's situation beyond the conclusion of the current session.I want to go back to the fact that at the moment there is on the books of the CERD committee a decision that is adverse to Australia and its international reputation and that, as far as I am aware, no-one within the government are doing anything about it. Senator Bolkus has raised a practical proposition of referring the decision to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee. That would be a good start, but he is a member of the opposition. Other senators, including Senator Margetts and Senator Woodley, have expressed concern about this issue, as have members of the other place. But all that the government representatives—Senator Herron, Mr Ruddock and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams—have done is to deny that this is an issue and say, `They're biased. They don't understand Australia.' Well, they would like to understand Australia better by visiting some time in late June or early July.But can they get an official invitation? They certainly could not get an official invitation from this Senate because the government would not support it. That is fair enough—the government should be doing the inviting. But the government is not inviting the committee. I challenge the ministerial representative in the chamber at the moment to report back to the Senate and let us know whether it is the government's intention to officially invite the committee. If the government are so sure that their legislation is non-discriminatory, if they are so proud of their relationship with indigenous people, what have they got to be scared of? Why are they avoiding scrutiny? But, if they do have something of a conscience and they want to avoid this scrutiny, do they really think it is going to help in the long run when the committee has to report to the United Nations General Assembly in November or December that there has been a failure to respond and no dialogue on this subject?I say to the government in as bipartisan way as I can muster, which is obviously fairly difficult for me on this side of the house, that this issue is not going to go away. Government members may say, `There goes the opposition bad mouthing the government,' but I am not particularly criticising the government. I am simply saying that government has to deal with it. That is why we elect governments. It is not in the interests of Australia, as Senator Margetts and Senator Crossin said, to ignore this and hope that somehow it will go away. It will not go away.For instance, already there is a European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights in London. On 22 March 1999 there was an Aboriginal call for British responsibility at Westminster. So this issue was being raised in London. I have here the US Department of State Australia Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998. It is quite a lengthy report on Australia's human rights practices. It contains a couple of pages of comment that is scarcely complimentary about the problems Australia has with indigenous rights. Of course, government can say, and I would say, that the US Department of State might look at its own practice in terms of human rights—the United States has the death penalty and Australia does not. Every country has reason to explain their policies in regard to human rights.Australia in 1992 was praised, was held up as a fine example, by the very same committee that is now critical. When I say that we were praised, I do not mean that everything the former government—the then Keating government—did in regard to indigenous rights was absolutely perfect. I was critical of my own government at that time on a number of issues. But the last time we appeared before the CERD committee it was generally recognised that Australia was moving in a very positive direction. There had been the landmark High Court case, the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody, and it seemed that, with the independent reporting of both the minister and ATSIC, there was progression in the recognition of indigenous rights generally in Australia. That is why I believe the committee has been shocked by the changes that have occurred in recent years.In conclusion, I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard the decision on Australia of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination at its 54th session, 1-19 March 1999. This has been reported in the media, but the full text of it has not been tabled in the lower house. It has not been tabled by the government in this house and, therefore, I seek not to table it but to incorporate it because I believe it should be there for all Australians who are interested to read.Leave granted.The document read as follows—COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION54TH SESSION 1-19 March 1999CERD/C/54/Misc.40/Rev.218 March 1999Unedited versionAUSTRALIADecision1. Acting under its early warning procedures, the Committee adopted Decision 1(53) on Australia on 11 August 1998 (A/53/18, para. 22), requesting information from the State Party regarding three areas of concern: proposed changes to the 1993 Native Title Act; changes of policy as to Aboriginal land rights; and changes in the position or function of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. The Committee welcomes the full and thorough reply of the Commonwealth Government of Australia to this request for information (CERD/C/347). The Committee also appreciates the dialogue with the delegation from the State party at the Committee's 1323rd and 1324th meetings to respond to additional questions posed by the Committee in regard to the State Party's submission.2. The Committee received similarly detailed and useful comments from the Acting Aboriginal and Torres and Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; members of the Parliament and Senate of Australia. 3. The Committee recognizes that within the broad range of discriminatory practices that have long been directed against Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the effects of Australia's racially discriminatory land practices have endured as an acute impairment of the rights of Australia's indigenous communities.4. The Committee recognizes further that the land rights of indigenous peoples are unique and encompass a traditional and cultural identification of the indigenous peoples with their land that has been generally recognized.5. In its last Concluding Observations on the previous report of Australia, the Committee welcomed the attention paid by the Australian judiciary to the implementation of the Convention. (A/49/18, para. 540) The Committee also welcomed the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Mabo v. Queensland, noting that in recognizing the survival of indigenous title to land where such title had not otherwise been validly extinguished, the High Court case constituted a significant development in the recognition of Indigenous rights under the Convention. The Committee welcomed, further, the Native Title Act of 1993, which provided a framework for the continued recognition of indigenous land rights following the precedent established in the Mabo case.6. The Committee having considered a series of new amendments to the Native Title Act, as adopted in 1998, expresses concern over the compatibility of the Native Title Act, as currently amended, with the State Party's international obligations under the Convention. While the original Native Title Act recognizes and seeks to protect indigenous title, provisions that extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests pervade the amended Act. While the original 1993 Native Title Act was delicately balanced between the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title holders, the amended Act appears to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title.7. The Committee notes, in particular, four specific provisions that discriminate against indigenous title-holders under the newly amended Act. These include the Acts's "validation" provisions; the "confirmation of extinguishment" provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions; and restrictions concerning the right of indigenous title holders to negotiate non-indigenous land uses.8. These provisions raise concerns that the amended Act appears to wind back the protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia and the 1993 Native Title Act. As such, the amended Act cannot be considered to be a special measure within the meaning of Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of the Convention and raises concerns about the State Party's compliance with Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention.9. The lack of effective participation by indigenous communities in the formulation of the amendments also raises concerns with respect to the State Party's compliance with its obligations under Article 5(c) of the Convention. Calling upon States Parties to "recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their common lands, territories and resources," the Committee, in its General Recommendation XXIII, stressed the importance of ensuring "that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent."10. While welcoming the State Party's recognition of the important role that has been played by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Committee also notes with concern the State Party's proposed changes to the overall structure of the Commission; abolishing the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and assigning those functions to a generalist Deputy President. The Committee strongly encourages the State Party to consider all possible effects of such a restructuring, including whether the new Deputy President would have sufficient opportunity to address in an adequate manner the full range of issues regarding indigenous peoples warranting attention. Consideration should be given to the additional benefits of an appropriately qualified specialist position to address these matters, given the continuing political, economic and social marginalization of the indigenous community of Australia.11. The Committee calls on the State Party to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency. Most importantly, in conformity with the Committee's General Recommendation XXIII concerning Indigenous Peoples, the Committee urges the State Party to suspend implementation of the 1998 amendments and re-open discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligations under the Convention.12. In light of the urgency and fundamental importance of these matters, and taking into account the willingness expressed by the State Party to continue the dialogue with the Committee over these provisions, the Committee decides to keep this matter on its agenda under its early warning and urgent action procedures to be reviewed again at its fifty-fifth session. I thank the Senate. In my concluding remarks I again make a plea to the government to recognise that no problem or embarrassment that they feel they are facing in regard to this issue will disappear by being ignored. There is always a view within government—and my government was no different—that, when something is in the too hard basket and people do not quite know what to do with it, if you leave it in the too hard basket long enough it will somehow dissipate and disappear. Indigenous issues and the rights of indigenous Australians will always be with us and will always be the subject of international focus until we learn to work in a realistic cooperative way with indigenous peoples. They will be there at the Olympic Games, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, at the United Nations and when individual members and senators travel overseas. I challenge anyone in this chamber to say they have never been asked about the policies of governments, regardless of the political complexion of governments.It is an issue that has been raised with me not just by people on formal delegations. A taxi driver asked me, `Are you still locking up your Aboriginal people?' because he had some knowledge of the Aboriginal deaths in custody report. I have spoken to other people who in no way are well informed but who nevertheless know that Australia has this reputation. We have to deal with the rights of indigenous peoples. Whatever the government may feel about Senator Bolkus's motion, I urge them to be open-minded. It can only assist in the process of assessing the concerns of the CERD committee and what action the Senate can recommend that the government put in process to change the way people throughout the world are looking at Australia at the moment.22:46:004530Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The speakers before me have gone into many matters that show how crucial this issue is. I do not want to repeat the arguments and propositions that have been put before the Senate, but I do want to talk about the issue of process. Process is often thought of as a very dull topic, and it is—people want to get to the issues where the imagination, the soul and the heart can soar. Process is simply a means of getting there, but it is important. We are a member of the United Nations organisation, and we are entitled to make criticisms of the way it goes about its tasks and of the conventions it produces, but, as a member, we should take seriously the processes by which it carries out its work.Take the World Trade Organisation, for example. We have international commitments in trade and commerce. We disagree with a lot of the things that the bodies associated with the World Trade Organisation and world commerce do. We get upset when they say we should allow the importation of products from overseas which we think would harm us here. Nevertheless, we go ahead with it because unless we are prepared to say, `We are in on this arrangement, and we are going to stick by it even though it harms us,' what is the point of going into the arrangement? You might as well withdraw.In the present instance, a unit of the United Nations has made a criticism of Australia and our conduct in a particular area. Do we then say, `Look, that criticism has been made but we will take no notice of it. When we go into an organisation like the United Nations organisation, we'll only take notice of what is in our favour'? If we did, the whole system would not work. If the only time we turned up at court was when we were going to win, the whole system would collapse. In the same way, if we are only going to take notice of world bodies when they say something that suits us, but when it does not we walk away, then the whole thing is devalued, there is not much point in belonging to it and we might as well get out.An organisation of the United Nations has made a criticism of Australia, and Senator Bolkus has proposed that we refer the matter to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee—of which I am a member—where the statement made by this body of the United Nations can be looked at calmly. Submissions can be received from those who say that there is merit in the resolution and from those who say there is not. It seems to me that if the Senate is not prepared to at least have a look at what the United Nations body has said, then it is skating around this important issue of process. It is skating around the obligation to look at what is said and to see what it makes of it.Taking into account and giving due weight to everything that has been said, one of the central points is how we as a nation, having joined a body voluntarily, treat the sorts of things they say. If we treat them as being not worth much—if we treat them on a discounted basis—then why belong to the world body? As I said before, if we belong to bodies that try to get world trade into a state where it benefits everyone, and we say, `We don't want to listen to you on certain issues,' then we ought to get out of the world body because otherwise we will corrupt the whole process. If you are in an organisation and you do not live by its processes, you corrupt the processes and, ultimately, the body, and the honourable thing to do would be to get out of it. But if you are in them you should treat seriously the sorts of things those bodies say.10:51:004531Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I agree, as I very often do, with the honourable senator, Senator Cooney, who has just resumed his seat. Process is a very important matter indeed. We should under that circumstance certainly treat as being of worth what CERD say, but they should also treat as being of worth what Australia says. In this instance they did not; in fact they ignored what Australia said. That is something which I believe all Australians, indigenous as well as non-indigenous, should be concerned about.The detailed legal submissions provided by Australia, both orally and in writing, were largely ignored. They were not referred to in the CERD decision. The portions of the committee's decisions, paragraphs 6 to 8, dealing with the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 could have been written in their entirety prior to the receipt of Australia's submissions. Is that process?The discriminatory character of the act is asserted without any effort to explain or substantiate the conclusion in terms of the law and of the convention. There is no reflection of the countervailing benefits provided to indigenous communities under the legislation, although this constituted a substantial part of Australia's submissions. Surely it should have been reasonable to expect that Australia's claims in this regard might at least have been noted. But there is no reference to them.The conclusions in paragraph 10 of the CERD committee report to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner omit any reference to the assurances provided to the committee concerning the ongoing functions of the position. I can go on with list after list where Australia's views were not even acknowledged in the report. I do believe it is very important not to use this issue, either locally or internationally, as a political football. That is why I agree with Senator Cooney about process.Let us now cast our minds back, if you will, to last year. All honourable senators will remember that the debate on the native title legislation was the longest debate in this chamber since Federation. Let us also understand what happened: there was a breakdown; there was a deadlock prior to Easter. Easter seems to visit me with difficulties.SF4COONEYSenator Cooney—It is a great season, though.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes. It is the last week of Lent so we had all to suffer it. I am sorry you had to suffer me, too; nevertheless, the matter unfortunately came down to my vote. The sticking points following the collapse of the Senate debate prior to Easter were the threshold test, the Racial Discrimination Act, the sunset clause and the right to negotiate. After 10 days of negotiations with the government the result, on any fair assessment, was a win for the indigenous people.Let me explain the position as a result of that. The government's registration test was substantially softened to enable the children of the stolen generation and the victims of the locked gate practices to have their native title claims registered. This allows them access to the benefits of the act. The government backed down on the Racial Discrimination Act. As you will recall, they had put a sunset clause in the legislation, but now the Native Title Act is able to be read and construed by reference to the Racial Discrimination Act. Going to the six-year sunset clause, after which time the government believed that no indigenous group could lodge a claim under the act—a much easier mechanism than a common law action, which they would have been forced to—on my insistence the government scrapped that sunset clause.On the fourth sticking point, the right to negotiate, registration gave native title claimants access to the provisions of the act, including the right to negotiate with other titleholders. The government was opposed to any right to negotiate for native title claimants on pastoral leases granted by states and territories. I wanted to have the so-called equality of procedure rights for pastoralists and native title claimants, and I maintain that there cannot be such equality unless the nature of native title rights is recognised as unique and their interests different.On this basis, I was able to secure what is in effect the right to negotiate under a state scheme. This requires notification of a proposed act—for example, mining—to native title holders and claimants; consultation, with a view to minimising any effect; mediation; and, in the event of disagreement, arbitration by an independent person or body. If favourable, that decision can be overturned only by the relevant minister after consultation with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and only in the public interest.All of this is subject to judicial review to ensure procedures are properly and fairly carried out. Any compensation must be on just terms, decided by an independent tribunal. The state scheme requires the approval of the federal minister and that approval must gain the support of the Senate. If it does not, the federal right to negotiate will apply. Is Queensland—a Labor state—opposed to that? The Northern Territory scheme was tabled two days ago. I am having a very careful look at that. No doubt other senators are examining it as well. As far as I am concerned, it may well not meet with approval, but that must ultimately be a matter for our decision.There were many other significant improvements to the legislation. I state quite unequivocally that I have continued to uphold both inside this place and out the protection of the common law native title rights of indigenous Australians and have done so in a manner that will provide certainty and fairness to all concerned. I defy anybody to get up in here and say that I have not done that. This is one of the very few motions in this chamber relating to indigenous matters that I have not supported.Senator Margetts interjecting—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—For example, yesterday there was the reference of the Jabiluka matter to a committee. If you cast your mind back, you will recall that there were great outcries from farmers and miners, but thankfully they have agreed—they have no choice I suppose—to work with the new system. Comments were made immediately after by the Chairman of ATSIC, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura. He indicated at that stage that he was comfortable with the outcome and he said:I must acknowledge the progress that has been made and the contribution that Senator Harradine has made in achieving that progress.. . . . . . . . .We suspect that Senator Harradine has taken the Prime Minister as far as he could to avoid a race based election. I think he has demonstrated courage and integrity throughout this debate.Cast your mind back—there was a threat of a double dissolution at that particular time. I knew that that was no idle threat. The country would have been plunged into a blindly intolerant, hate filled and bitter race based election. I must say that that was not uppermost in my mind—I think you have to deal with all of these matters on their merits. At the time, the Chairman of ATSIC expressed his disappointment at the validation of extinguishment acts carried out from 1 July 1994 until the Wik decision in December 1996. Those acts were carried out by the Labor and National Queensland governments contrary to the Native Title Act. Labor voted in the Senate for the validation of those provisions.Senator Bolkus has asked that these matters be referred to a committee. I say that is absurd, because due process was not undertaken by the CERD committee. But let us hear from Senator Bolkus in his response. Let the Senate hear what changes the Labor Party will make to that legislation if and when they are returned to government. Detail—in huge detail—what changes you are proposing to make to the legislation.I have received representations from indigenous people who believe this attempt will only exacerbate concerns in rural Australia and be visited upon them. A person whose opinion I very much respect, and who is a very vigorous supporter of the rights of indigenous people in Australia, including native title rights, has expressed the view strongly to me that this sort of action, which is triggered by a decision by a committee of the United Nations without having regard to what Australia has said—ignoring what Australia has said—is only exacerbating the differences and prejudices that we all know currently exist in this country.11:08:004533McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I want to add a few quick remarks to this debate. I listened with great interest to what Senator Harradine has just had to say, particularly his comments about due process before the United Nations CERD looking at this matter. I take it as not only an implied criticism, but also a direct criticism of those persons from the Attorney-General's Department led by Mr Orr who appeared before the committee and defended the government and Australia's position.Obviously Senator Harradine has taken a greater interest in the deliberations of the committee than I perhaps did at the time. He noted that an inadequate job was done before the committee by Mr Orr and the other persons who attended on behalf of Australia. If that is true, it is yet another matter that has to be addressed in the Attorney-General's office, an office that is not holding itself in very high regard for delivering the responsibilities previously delivered by that portfolio to the people of Australia.I will not delay the chamber, but I wish to make one further comment. I have just returned from overseas. I am not one who travels overseas at taxpayers' expense and takes the opportunity to bucket Australia or the deliberations of the parliaments of Australia. I feel that one should bite one's tongue when one is overseas representing one's nation. It was very difficult to do so in Norway last week when, on two separate occasions, representatives of the Sami nation met and made representations to a parliamentary delegation from this parliament on Australia's indigenous people. We did bite our tongues. We did not take sides, bucket Australia or in any way denigrate Australia, and the whole delegation did that, not just me. We behaved impeccably, but it is difficult when one is overseas and these comments are thrown at one.Part of the reason why these comments can be thrown at us is that we appear to have closed ranks on this issue. We are not open to deliberation or scrutiny. This was brought further to the fore last week when this chamber rejected a proposition that the CERD ought to be invited to come to Australia to see for itself just what the situation is here.I was not here to take part in that vote, but what have we got to hide? After listening to Senator Harradine's impassioned speech, it would appear that we have got nothing to hide. If we have got nothing to hide, why are we hiding? Why are we going to reject this reference to a Senate committee for further scrutiny? I think that is probably what is going to happen in a very short time. Why are we doing that? I am baffled that the Senate of Australia should seek to do so, if indeed we are going to follow that course of action shortly.If we do have something to hide, let's hide it, but if we have nothing to hide, let's open it up and refer this matter to a Senate committee. Let's invite all participants to put their views forward. Let's even go to the extent of inviting CERD to appear before the committee and see what views can be gleaned from them.11:13:004534Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I want to place on record the government's position on this. Senator Bolkus does not refer to CERD in his motion. He is referring to issues that have been dealt with at length by committees of this parliament.These matters, as Senator Harradine has said, have been dealt with at incredible length. In fact, one of the debates was the longest debate on a single piece of legislation in Australian history. The debate on the two 1997 native title bills totalled 105 hours and 56 minutes. These matters were considered in detail and, as Senator Margetts said in her contribution, at length by the committees that looked into these bills just over a year ago. They were before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title for 53 days and 39 days in two different references. The Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee looked at these issues for a period of 39 days in 1997 and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title spent 53 days considering the legislation and these legal and constitutional issues. So, during the first term of the Howard government there were in excess of 90 days in committee.I noted in some of the press over the last weekend that the government copped some flak for referring the so-called online bill. There was some disquiet because that bill, which is a relatively minor bill compared to a native title bill, was going to be referred to a committee for nine effective working days. I read a story in the West Australian at the weekend to that effect.It makes me laugh when I saw what happened in 1993 under the previous government on a piece of legislation as large, as complex, as overarching and as far-reaching as the Native Title Bill to now hear the Australian Labor Party saying that we need to refer just about everything off to a committee. In fact, more bills have been referred to more committees for longer in the last three years than in the history of Australia. For how long did Senator Bolkus and his mob want their Native Title Bill referred to a committee in 1993? How many days was that off at a committee? Seven working days. This is incredible, breathtaking hypocrisy from the mob opposite when it comes to committee references. These matters have spent in excess of 90 days in committee in the recent sittings of the parliament. That is the Labor Party's solution to native title. Senator Harradine has said to them, `Put your cards on the table. Come up with a policy.'Probably very few people in Kalgoorlie, for example, read the Guardian Weekly. Most of them read the Kalgoorlie Miner. It might do Senator Bolkus good to read a paper like the Kalgoorlie Miner and see what the Australian Labor Party's equivocation on the native title issue is doing to the economy of a place like Kalgoorlie. I suggest to Senator Bolkus that he gets a subscription to the Kalgoorlie Miner and reads that, and puts his love and passion for a journal such as the Guardian Weekly to one side for a time.Senator Harradine has challenged the Labor Party to put their amendments on the table, to say what they will do when they get back into power. That is what the people of Western Australia and, as Senator Harradine has said, Aboriginal people and other Australians would like. All we have got out of the Labor Party so far is, `We'll have a little powwow.' Mr Beazley's election policy was, `We'll have a meeting after the election and try to solve it.' That is not good enough for an opposition that purport to want to be a government at some stage in the next millennium. They should put their policies on the table. We are sick of their reliance on United Nations committees to run Australia. We think the Australian government, with the consent of the Australia parliament, should do that. This parliament has considered these matters at great length and, much to the ALP's chagrin, passed these laws. There has been a due process, a proper parliamentary process, and the law has passed through, as Senator Harradine has said, a gruelling process. The government will be opposing this motion.11:18:004535Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Pursuant to standing order 191, I claim to have been misunderstood by Senator McKiernan.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—You may make an explanation under that standing order, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Senator McKiernan suggested I was reflecting in some way on a very fine public servant, Mr Robert Orr, who represented Australia in CERD. If Senator McKiernan had seen the material that was prepared and presented to CERD by Mr Orr, he would not have suggested that that indicated any sign of incompetence; quite the reverse. I have the utmost respect for Mr Orr's competence and his ability to represent Australia. What I was saying was simply that, in the CERD committee's report, there is not even a reference to some of the major points made by Australia at that meeting.11:20:004535Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In response, can I put a few things on the record but also say a few things to Senator Harradine. Senator Campbell's response was predictable. There was no attempt to justify the government's position. It was basically an attack on anyone but the government, and once again an attack on the international mechanisms. We are becoming used to that from the government, but it is an issue that should be of concern to all of us and I know would be an issue of concern to Senator Harradine.To Senator Harradine I say that I found his contribution enormously disappointing. I know we do not have a lunchbreak between this debate and the vote, but I would like him to listen to a few things I want to say because I do think his contribution was based on a number of inaccuracies. I am concerned that, by taking the position that Senator Harradine has taken, we are essentially taking a closed door approach to external scrutiny. If you are concerned about how the committee assessed Australia, then let us not be unfair to that UN committee. They want to come to Australia, but the government will not let them. If we set up a mechanism like the one I am proposing, then there is an opportunity for some of the questions and concerns that you have raised to be addressed. It does not do us any service to be cutting off this debate when the rest of the world is having it. To have an opportunity here to visit some of these issues is important.We are talking of a UN instrument that has been one of the benchmarks in Senator Harradine's attitude to public life and his votes in the Senate—the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We do not do any service to that convention by saying, `The committee charged with implementing and overseeing it has made a decision, but we in Australia will close our doors, the doors of the Senate and the government, to the views of that committee, and we hope the issue will go away.' As I said before, Senator Harradine, this issue will not go away. I think we are being unfair and not doing a service to either the convention or the committee by not at least allowing some degree of scrutiny.Senator Harradine made a great point of saying that the committee had ignored what Australia said. The committee may have rejected what Australia said, but I do not think the transcript shows that the committee ignored what Australia said. The committee may not have noted what Australia said in its final decision, but if you look at the transcript of the committee's deliberations—the meeting of the committee where they heard the report from Ms McDougall, the country rapporteur—you will find 8½ pages of questions formulated by the rapporteur and put to Australia. They were questions which were part of the debate in this place before the election; questions which have been raised this morning.As I said, there were 8½ pages of questions with respect to Australia's position on the bill, on the ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner and also on the issue of special measure. I will turn to the special measure issue later. There was even acknowledgment by the Attorney-General on a number of occasions that the committee had engaged Australia in a meaningful way. On 16 March he said that the committee welcomed Australia's detailed reply to its request for information. He said:The Government has informed the Committee of the extensive process of consultation and public debate . . . He reflected a similar engagement with the committee in a previous press statement in the first week in March.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Nothing was said by CERD about the consultation—nothing.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Let me get to that. There was constructive engagement—and that was recognised by the Attorney—to the effect that Robert Orr travelled all the way from Canberra to discuss the government's response. That was recognised by the rapporteur in the minutes of the meeting of the committee, which are available to all of us. Appreciation was expressed by the rapporteur `for the assistance and cooperation that I received from the Australian Attorney-General', before formulating 8½ pages of questions to be put to Australia—questions which were answered. There is recognition of engagement by Australia through the Attorney-General and recognition of engagement by the rapporteur.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Not in the report.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The problem which the government had, Senator Harradine, when you say `not in the report', was that they went there and tried to mislead. I note you are shaking your head. The evidence of that is the finding of the committee that Australia breached the convention in respect of four grounds. Paragraph No. 7 reads:The Committee notes, in particular, four specific provisions that discriminate against indigenous title-holders under the newly amended Act. These include: the Act's "validation" provisions; the "confirmation of extinguishment" provisions; the primary production upgrade provisions—Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I will get to that. Paragraph No. 7 continues:. . . and restrictions concerning the rights of indigenous title holders to negotiate non-indigenous land uses.Do you know what problem the government has got in that regard? It has got one fundamental problem.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—You voted for the validation.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Do you know what problem you have, Senator Harradine, in this regard? Unfortunately for the officer involved—Senator Harradine interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—He is getting worked up this morning.Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Are you quite finished?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Yes.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The problem that you have, Senator Harradine, and the problem that Mr Orr had was that document which reflected the advice which the Australian government had been getting on this bill in the lead-up to the debate, during the debate and after the debate—not just from within government circles, not just from the Australian Government Solicitor, but also from external advice that it sought.When you go to the question time brief prepared by contact officer Robert Orr of the Wik task force on 17 November 1997, you find that three out of the four issues of concern to CERD are reflected in that advice. I will read what Mr Orr said:Advice was sought from the Australian Government Solicitor on whether the 10-point plan was consistent with the RDA and if not, would any of its proposals cause the RDA to be invalid as no longer supported by the constitutional external affairs power.The RDA is important here because it incorporates the international covenant into Australian law. Mr Orr continued:In summary, Chief General Counsel Henry Burmester advised on 25 July 1997 that he is of the view that in some circumstances the proposals in the 10-point plan may involve an inconsistency with the RDA or with CERD. This inconsistency arises particularly in relation to the validation regime, the confirmation regime (especially the provision for `permanent extinguishment' if this is found not to be the common law position), and the provisions which enable rights of pastoral lessees to be enhanced at the expense of co-existing native title rights.It does not mention the right to negotiate, which we must recognise was your mechanism in the bill. That is not recognised as a problem with CERD, although CERD found that it might have been. With regard to the three primary points that CERD was concerned about, the Australian government had its own legal advisers telling them that they would breach the RDA and CERD. Mr D.F. Jackson QC also gave the government advice, on 3 February 1997, that—and I quote:. . . legislative wholesale extinguishment of native title on all pastoral leases by either the states/territories or the Commonwealth, even with `just terms' compensation, would be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act (consistent with previous advice by the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General's Department).This government were quite aware, from the most eminent advice available to them, that they were breaching that convention. They went to CERD and said, as the Attorney-General said, that the government's view was that they had not breached the convention.Senator Harradine interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—They tried to mislead. That is where they got caught out. That is what you cannot overcome in this debate, Senator Harradine.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—But it must be read according to the RDA. Don't you understand that?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—That is the next point I was going to make. The committee then went on to discuss special measures, read in accordance with the RDA. It said that the mechanisms for reading it in accordance with the RDA were the mechanisms adopted by the Labor government in the 1993 legislation, and that was to use the mechanism of special measures. The committee said, in respect of the 1993 act, that the act was consistent with the RDA; that it was consistent with CERD. It said:It delicately balanced the rights of indigenous and non-indigenous title-holders. The amended act, however, appears to create legal certainty for governments and third parties at the expense of indigenous title-holders.They recognised that the first act was consistent with the special measure mechanism in the convention, but they also made it very clear that the amended act was not; it very clearly was not. That is another instance where they took into account the evidence presented to them by the Australian delegation—evidence which, as I say, the Attorney-General was quite keen to reflect as constructive engagement with this committee.You then say to me, `What about Labor's position?' Labor's position in 1993 was consistent with the RDA. Labor's position in 1997-98 was also a total wholesale alternative to what the government put up, and you know that full well. You know that, in putting up that alternative, we were quite conscious of trying once again to get the balance right in order to avail ourselves of the mechanisms of CERD and the special measure mechanism. Although some elements of that alternative policy were obviously negative in terms of the impact on indigenous Australians, it was recognised by indigenous Australians as a special measure which could comply with the act. We know that as well. So it is chalk and cheese in terms of what this government has put up and our alternative at the time.You ask what we will do in the future. There are already court cases on this legislation, but our attempt in the future will be to make a workable prescription. If you want workable prescriptions, you do not go to Kalgoorlie now because, despite what Senator Ian Campbell says, there are real concerns on the ground there with this government's legislation. The government rejected our alternative to fix up the Kalgoorlie problem. Our approach would be both workable and consistent with the RDA in a manner which we have shown can be done.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Give us the details, please.6H4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Harradine, we always wait for details from you—we have to wait to the death to get them. In this particular instance, you would say to us that we should wait for the court deliberations and decisions, and that is what we will do. But we gave you the prescription on what to do and how to do it during the last debate. I think you fully understood at the time what we were trying to do and how we were also driven by a need not just for workability but also for consistency with our international obligations. They will be the benchmarks for the future as well.I am also concerned about the way you have treated this particular UN committee. I am not so sure that you wanted to sound disparaging about them, and I did say that maybe some inaccuracies have driven you in this.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You stand up for them; you protect them.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Well, you will not; the Attorney-General will not. I remind you, Senator Campbell, and Senator Harradine, that it was a committee of the United Nations that actually put together the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and we were at the forefront of that. They were the days when Australia used to engage constructively with the United Nations. They were the days when benchmark international mechanisms like this were developed. I would hazard a bet that, if we were now in the process of trying to develop a convention on the elimination of race discrimination, there would be one vacant spot at the table and that would be Australia's spot. This Prime Minister would not be party to such international human rights agenda setting. He would basically see it as political correctness. Senator Harradine, UN committees have jobs to do and they have done them extremely well. I put to you that you may have been a bit unfair with respect to this committee.I will end on this particular point. Senator Harradine has raised concerns about Labor's position and about the committee's operation. I would like to be in a position to ask representatives of the Attorney-General: what did the Attorney-General mean in his press statements when he reflected the fact that Australia had a constructive engagement with the UN committee? We would like to get to that. We would then like to work out why, after the decision came out, he decided to shoot the messenger. We would like to find out what led to a change of legal position between that legal advice, the question time brief prepared by Mr Robert Orr on 17 November 1997 and the position put to CERD. There are directly fundamental inconsistencies and it is important for us to find out why the government had a change of view and why Mr Orr had a change of view. Did the Australian Government Solicitor have a change of view? Did they receive more advice through external briefings of QCs to see whether there was another point of view?If you ain't got nothing to hide on this, then you set up a committee. Not only that, but there is an obligation on us, Senator Harradine, to ensure that whatever dirty linen might be hanging out concerning this issue is revealed. You say you have advice from someone close to Aboriginal communities that reopening this may cause problems in outlying areas. Those problems will always be there unless we in this place are prepared to take an honest approach.You will always have problems in this society given the diversity of it, not just problems with indigenous Australians but, from the migration intake that we have had, you will always have problems if one part of this community feels it has been discriminated against on the basis of race. You know that, Senator Harradine, because for all of your public life in this place one of your fundamental benchmarks has been the UN convention. We have respected you for that. As immigration minister I had to cop the heat of it, but at all times I respected what was driving you. In this particular instance, you would be letting down that convention, the international mechanism to enforce it and also what well-meaning people in this society want to do if you reject the opportunity for us to scrutinise the government's actions. Question put: That the motion (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.11:41:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.34Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. *Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.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.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bishop, T. M. Hill, R. M.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Hutchins, S. Abetz, E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business45394539Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That after consideration of government business order of the day No. 3, Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 , government business order of the day No. 4, Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , be considered until not later than 2 p.m. this day.Bills4539r800Billsr799453911:45:004539Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move:That the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 May 1999: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 199911:45:004540Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not rising to indicate that I will be voting against the motion that Senator Kemp has just moved. I am rising to say that here we have another package of bills that has just been introduced and then referred to a committee, which is fine, except that they are part of the package. We are being told we have to consider the ANTS package as a whole and yet there are still parts of the package which have only just been introduced and are only now being put to the committee for consideration.We know that part of the issue is that the government have said they did not want to change any part of the ANTS package. We know, as I have said on a number of occasions, that the business package is being dealt with separately—and here we have another part of the package that has not even gone to a committee stage yet. All of this feeds into the total picture and we should have had the total picture before we were asked to consider and vote on any of these bills. So it is very disappointing that the government made certain statements about the whole thing having to be considered as a package, and then put in bits and pieces while leaving out bits that we will not have to be able to see the total package.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees454045404540Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Chapman)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on the provisions of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 be extended to 11 May 1999.Bills4540r703Billsr667Billsr666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr6614540A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 28 April.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998, to which Senator Murray has moved amendment No. 1 on sheet 1369 on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Senator Margetts has moved an amendment—on sheet 1385—to Senator Murray's amendment. The question is that Senator Margetts's amendment to Senator Murray's amendment be agreed to.11:48:004541Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—At this stage of the debate I would like to get some clarification from Senator Kemp about some matters I have raised on two previous occasions. Last Friday just prior to the Senate adjourning and again on Tuesday of this week I raised the matter of the 128 amendments that Senator Kemp has tabled in the Senate. I requested on the Tuesday a breakdown of the 128 amendments into two categories: those amendments that Minister Kemp alleges restore the government's original intentions and the amendments that were as a consequence of consultations that he said had been held with the wider community. I also then asked what the costs of those amendments were and what the savings were to the particular industries that were fortunate enough to be beneficiaries of those amendments. Minister, when will that information be forthcoming?11:50:004541Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The advice I have received from my officers who are preparing the information you have requested is that we should be able to have the advice for you tomorrow.11:50:004541Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Thank you for that. I will not be pursuing the issue any further at the moment, but I just would make the point to Senator Kemp and to the chamber that you certainly gave the impression that all of the 128 amendments that you presented to the Senate were minor technical amendments. You then did explain that some of them were amendments that reflected the wider consultations that had occurred with the general community.It is important to know what the financial implications of the 128 amendments are. As I said on Tuesday, they went to an extensive range of issues. I did illustrate my request with some reference to the saving to the sugar industry of approximately $2.3 million per annum. I acknowledge they are not your figures, Minister Kemp; they are figures that the sugar industry provided in evidence before the select committee. But the amendments went way beyond the sugar industry. There were a range of issues relating to financial institutions, insurance, bad debts, nursing homes, farm land and other significant matters. So I look forward to the details in response to my request, Senator Kemp.11:52:004541Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Sherry, we will certainly, as I said, provide you with the request. One of the amendments relates to the issue of gambling, and perhaps it is useful for me to make some comments on this in the light of some of the press articles this morning. The government's policy in relation to gambling was set out in the taxation package which was released in August last year. What was said there was that the GST will apply to the operator's margin, not the prizes paid out. That is, the tax will apply to the difference between the total ticket sales and bets taken and the value of prizes or winnings paid out. As states already tax gambling highly, there may need to be corresponding reductions in state gambling taxes. The taxation package allowed for the entire proceeds of the goods and services tax from gambling to be paid over to the states, and the recently signed Commonwealth-state agreement provides compensation for the states for GST on gambling so the states' gambling taxes will be reduced in the same amount.The GST bill introduced on 2 December last year sought to give effect to this policy by adopting a global accounting system for gambling supplies in which tax was payable on total amounts wagered less total monetary prizes, that is, the player's loss. However, the current definition did not fully take into account all payments that the casino operator must pay and therefore incorrectly states the player loss and the casino profit. A common practice in the industry is to provide a rebate to some gamblers on their total losses. The rebate has the effect of reducing the casino margin. The amendment ensures that such rebates are included in the calculation of player loss and casino margin. This is not a concession, as was reported, but merely gives effect to the original policy so that the operator's true margin is subject to tax. The approach is entirely consistent with the states' approach to the taxation of gambling, where a reduced rate is applied to the commission based play.Another example of an amendment that the government is making to ensure that the net revenue from gambling does not change is the government's proposals to make GST free certain raffles and bingo activities. These are not currently subject to state taxes, and the only practical way to give effect to the government's policy of no net gambling tax change is to exclude them from the GST.11:55:004542Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—That is an extraordinary intervention by the minister. The minister began by saying that he would like to take the opportunity to express a government view about news reports that appeared today. That is not the issue that is before the chair, but I note that the minister has used the forum of the committee stage of this bill to reply to what has been said in the media and has used the forum of the committee stage of this bill to explain a government policy position. If this is what it is about, we might as well go to some of the issues raised by the minister in his statement.An extraordinary situation has now emerged. The government has put down what I think will be colloquially known as the high roller amendments to aid casinos, to give them an exemption for their $500,000-plus patrons and to consider their so-called needs, but it is an exemption that does not apply elsewhere. In the inquiry that we have had into the GST, we have had welfare organisation after welfare organisation come and ask for some consideration on their costs of administration and functioning, and this government has declined to accept their views. What we now have is the minister saying, `Well, charities' lamington drives and bingo can be looked after in some way by the government in order to offset a major concession to casinos for their high roller interna tional patrons who gamble in half-million dollar plus packets.'3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I am very interested in this particular issue and I think it is one that does need to be debated at length, but I do note that later on in the running sheets, both early on and I think at page 9 of the running sheets, the gambling issues will be dealt with. I just wonder whether we should not hold off, as it were, until we get there and then go hard at it when those appear.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The issues before the chair are the Democrats' amendment and the Greens' amendment. However, the minister did actually raise the high roller one.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—If I can just take a moment to explain my position, I did not start this. The minister started it by at the beginning of play on the GST bills jumping up and saying, `There was something in the papers this morning I did not like and I am now going to put down a government statement about it.' He proceeded to do that and opened up the issue. If we were proceeding with this in an orderly manner, when we came to the amendments that the government has tabled on this issue we ought to, as Senator Murray has rightly observed, deal with this issue then. But the government has chosen this opportunity to try and redress what it considers is an unfavourable press report about its view of the GST and how it favours its mates and does not look after those in need, and it has proceeded to open up this debate.I am happy to hold my fire and debate this later on, but in view of the statement I just thought I should say now that, as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, when those amendments come along we will not be supporting them. We think those amendments are favouritism to the high roller mates of the Liberal Party. We think those amendments do bias the system unfairly. We do not see a basis at all for giving casinos a break which is not extended to other areas of the community in a like manner. We do not see particularly that the casinos are a deserving group in Australian society when we have had so many other organisations that I think have made a very compelling case to the inquiry and ought to have their needs met; yet we see that the government ignores their needs but concedes the needs of the casinos.We are talking about a class of player at the casinos who are not your mums and dads, bread-and-butter gamblers that put up 50 bucks and go in and gamble in dollar lots. We are talking here about the ultra rich of the world, the international patrons, the ones that go into the high roller room, to which you would never be allowed admission wearing a pair of slacks and an open-neck shirt. We are talking here about the ultra rich that fly into airports in their private jets and then wander down in their chauffeured limousines to the Crown Casino, or whatever it is, and move straight into the mahogany room to risk in gambling half a million dollars or more a throw—as the paper said today, up to $5 million dollars a throw—and we are talking about the government giving a concession to casinos for that class of player.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—It is obscene.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I take that objection about it being obscene. The issue is: has this country lost its principle? What about the fair go? What about the average Australian? What about concerns about the equity and fairness of this tax package? Senator Kemp may not like the publicity that I read on the front page of this morning's Sydney Morning Herald . If you were in government you would say, `God, we've taken a hit here,' but the government have taken a hit legitimately because they are their amendments. The explanation that is being made now is that this is what they always intended to do. Does that make it better?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's right. They always intended to look after their mates.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—They intended to look after their mates. They forgot to look after their mates properly when they drafted the bill, so here they come in panting, amendment in hand, saying, `We'd better look after them now,' and `It's all right. We intended this all along.' Have we lost a sense of proportion? I think this is an extraordinary turn of events. Then to pass this off as if it is a routine technical amendment is the explanation that is so misleading about this.The government started this big so-called tax adventure back in April last year. They brought down their package in the so-called ANTS document in October, they ambushed the electorate in an election later in October and then they claimed a mandate to roll this legislation through. Having got that far—having pushed it through with a guillotine in the House of Representatives before Christmas and it comes here and fetches up on the shores of the Senate—they now say, `We have 128 amendments we want to make. Somewhere in the middle of this sheaf of 128 amendments is a deal for our high roller mates that own casinos in Australia and we think that is only routine.'Minister, you have made an explanation about this. I think that explanation will hang like an albatross around the neck of the government because ordinary Australians will be paying—if this legislation is given assent by this chamber—a GST of 10 per cent on everything but the international high roller jetsetting into Essendon aerodrome or into Mascot will be getting a tax break. If there is anything that goes about being an example of manifest unfairness, that will be. Your explanation today has not in fact cleared up the issue; it has clouded the issue and has tried to divert attention from the real sin that is occurring here.I notice in the paper this morning that Reverend Tim Costello, who I understand is the brother of the Treasurer, has had devastating words to say about the government's morality and sense of proportion on this. I notice in the paper as well that the Salvation Army, who obviously know at first-hand the needs of the poor and the needy in our society—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—The low rollers.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The low rollers; in many cases the no rollers because they cannot afford to have any money to even get through the front door of a casino. The Salvation Army too have launched a devastating criticism of the government. All I can say is that, quite clearly, we will debate this if the government is foolhardy enough to persist now with the amendments that it has foreshadowed in the face of what is a gathering public storm of protest about the priorities and principles of this government.I happen to think that a prudent government, faced with this public outcry, would do the sensible thing and quietly over the weekend just pull those amendments out of the pack and forget about proceeding with them. If you had any sense, that is what you would do, not that I am in the position of advising a government—far from it. But if I were to, I would suggest that is what you ought to do: over the weekend quietly forget the matter—bury it—and get on with the other issues of the GST.But I suspect you will not because the intricate web of the connections of influence between the Liberal Party, particularly in Victoria, and casino ownership is so intense and so important to the functioning of that operation that you cannot forget it and cannot do the sensible thing, that you are captive here and you are obliged to proceed. I suspect that is the truth. I hope you prove me wrong, and if you do I will be the first to acknowledge that you have done the sensible and prudent thing. But I suspect I am right and that you will proceed to press these amendments.There is nothing in the explanation that has been provided today that should cause anyone that is offended by this manifestation of naked greed to be mollified in any way. There is nothing in what has been said by you, Minister, today that would cause anyone to think the government is moderating its position. In fact, there is every reason—taking the explanation that you have made—to presume that the government is digging in. That is the reason you made the explanation in the first place. You made the explanation because you wanted to try and defend the government's position. You wanted to try—utilising this phase of the debate—to step forward and quietly, just before lunchtime on Thursday, make an official explanation and hope the whole thing might therefore serve as a press release to be run round the gallery and counter the outrage that is being expressed by community and church leaders around Australia. I do not think this occasion can go past in this chamber with us allowing that type of `sneak the explanation through'. We are bound to stand, to mark the spot and to now say: when these amendments come forward, if you are foolhardy enough to persist with them, the Australian Labor Party will defeat them. The basic argument in this debate on a GST has boiled down to an argument about fairness. And that is a good argument to have. One of the things that is basic to the ethic of Australia, to the egalitarian nature of our own society, to the idea of a fair go for everyone is let's do it fairly, let's treat everyone reasonably and let's give everyone a break.The GST is a percentage tax that applies equally to everyone irrespective of income and it takes a bigger slice of the income of the poor than it does of the wealthy. It is a regressive tax. The debate is about how you make that fair. Our submission in this debate is that you cannot. The very nature of the tax makes it unfair and the compensation you might award to try to overcome the unfairness for those on middle and low incomes in this nation will be compensation delivered up-front now, if it is, but future governments will knock it off, change it or erode it and the tax will remain forever but the compensation will fade away. The unfairness will, as the years tick by, get more and more gross. That is what this debate is now about.On top of this debate, as we are talking about how gross it will get and the options to lock in fairness, comes the story in this morning's press about the casinos and how the high rollers, the international billionaires who gamble in the exclusive rooms of the major casinos in Australia, are to be assisted by having some of their losses handed back to them and the handing back of their losses, because of the size of their losses, is a tax deduction for the casinos. We are talking here about capturing the international casino trade and the way we do it apparently in this country is that, when a higher roller has bet and lost a million dollars, we hand some of their losses back to them. We then say, `That is free of the GST.' And we say, under your amendment, `This is fair.' Tell that to the rest of the patrons of the casino.I am not a patron of a casino, but I respect the right of people to gamble if they want to. I deplore where it is done in excess, but I am not opposed to the principle of gambling at all. But it is not fair for the rest of the patrons and as sure as hell it ain't fair for the rest of Australia.12:10:004545Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am at a bit of a loss. We are in the committee stage and I heard Senator Kemp make a comment about the government's intention. I have the amendments to be moved on behalf of the government and in those amendments there is an amendment to division 126 to insert subdivision 126(1)(a), amendments to 126(33) and an amendment on bingo and raffles. That is an amendment to subdivision 38-F. Are we to expect that further amendments will be provided for us at some particular stage?12:12:004545Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are not proposing further amendments in relation to gambling, which you mentioned.12:12:004545Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—We are not up to that, are we?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—No, we are not. We are still on Senator Margetts's amendment to the Democrat amendment. But the minister started the discussion.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I have had a good look at those amendments. I am not now referring to the bingo and raffle amendments. I had expected to hear the detailed arguments from the minister when they came forward. The minister has now advanced arguments in favour of those amendments and, unless there are any other pressing arguments that might be influential in the chamber supporting those amendments, on the basis of what has been said thus far, I cannot see that the Senate would support those amendments.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—After Senator Murray has finished I would like to get back to Senator Margetts's amendment.12:14:004545Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I was upstairs at a hearing into the financial sector bills and I arrived a few minutes late for the recommencement of this debate and I missed the minister's remarks on this matter. I will have to refer to Hansard to get them. As you know, I took a point of order to say that perhaps we should delay the debate until later, but since the minister has raised the matter and since it is an issue of immediate importance I think I should add a few remarks to what has been said already.My first remark refers to the different roles of the select committee, the Senate and the government. The select committee received confidential submissions on this matter. The select committee did not take evidence in camera from the witness concerned, and I am concerned about the possibility that the confidential submissions to the committee have gone to the government to influence their amendment. Perhaps later on in the debate the minister could indicate whether the source for the government's gambling amendments was separate or different from confidential submissions to the Senate select committee, because there would be a matter of privilege attached to that, and that is an important issue.The second issue that I wish to draw to the minister's attention, and on which perhaps he can take advice and advise us in the debate, is the sequential nature of transactions which are being discussed—namely, that a bet is placed and subsequently a rebate is provided. To my mind, in the law with which we are dealing, those constitute two separate transactions of a service and would be separately subject to a GST. I would like to draw your attention to that too.The third area is an area of priority in policy and very much goes to the nub of what Senator Cook was saying. It is that inbound tourists have been refused GST free status as exports. Inbound tourists happen to be ordinary people, mostly. They are honeymoon couples coming to Australia, they are mums and dads visiting their children, they are friends of business people here, and they are ordinary tourists wanting to enjoy Australia. As an export industry, the legitimate claim for GST free status has been ignored by the government, and yet the government has been very rapidly responsive to a different class of tourist—the rich, the elite, the high rollers, who patronise a few very large establishments with which the coalition has intimate relationships. You need to dust off your reasons and explain to the Senate why you would treat the mums, dads, friends, honeymoon couples and business visitors coming in on inbound tourism packages entirely differently from high rollers. I make those points briefly in response to the remarks made so far.12:18:004546Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—As the minister has opened this debate now—I thought we would be having it a little later when we got to the government amendments—I need to move on from some of those questions that Senator Murray has asked that I hope the minister will be able to answer for us today. Are you just talking about high rollers, and do you expect that these people will be, overwhelmingly, tourists? If the answers are yes and yes, then I have to ask why it is that you are concerned about jobs in casinos but not about the myriad of jobs in the tourism industry—the jobs on charter jobs, in hotels, restaurants, et cetera. Why is it that we seem to be narrowing in on one particular group of jobs and ignoring all those other tourism jobs?As we well know, there are only two export industries that have not been covered in your tax package, and the one that stands out the most is the tourist industry. This package was supposedly designed with a view to supporting exports, and yet one of our most successful export industries—the tourism industry—has been ignored. Whereas other countries offer a range of different incentives for tourism, here there are none—until now. We now have some incentives for one particular group of tourists to travel to Australia. As my colleague Senator Murray said, the government's attitude is, `Forget about the families and forget about the honeymoon couples. We want the high rollers.' If the minister is not prepared to answer these questions today, we certainly need them to be taken on notice. When we get back to this debate, I think the fundamental questions will be: why are some tourists now going to be preferred over others, and why are some jobs going to be preferred over others?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—I remind the Senate that the question of relevance seems to have just lately departed a little.12:20:004546Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The minister raised this issue, and no-one called him to relevance. Don't be involved in a further cover-up, Mr Temporary Chairman. Minister—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I rise on a point of order to clarify the situation.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What point of order?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I am entitled to take a point of order, Senator. I am perfectly entitled to take a point of order and I intend to. The debate commenced with Senator Sherry's comments about the amendments that the government brought forward. What I was doing, quite rightly, was an illustration of—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Minister, what is your point of order?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The point of order is that I am trying to explain to the Senate precisely how this debate commenced.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—In that case, I will wait until Senator Conroy has finished.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Minister, this morning you responded to a question from Ms Kirk on AM . She asked:But is the gambling industry better off or not—yes or no—thanks to this amendment?Senator Sherry has been asking you about the revenue implications of the amendment—not about the original revenue implication of the bill, but whether there is a revenue implication—positive, negative or neutral—of the amendment.12:21:004546Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There is nothing against the forward estimates as a result of the amendment. This amendment, as I have stated clearly, restores the original intent.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I am listening.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Let me finish, Senator. You have asked me a question and I plan to answer it. As I said, there are no changes to the forward estimates—that is the advice I have received—as a result of this amendment.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is not the question I asked, and you know it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You asked what the revenue effects are of this. My answer is that on the advice I have received from my advisers there are no changes to the forward estimates as a result of this change. That answers the question.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That does not.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You can go and shake your head all you like, but that is the answer to that particular question, Senator. That is the response you asked for, and I have given it to you.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is not the question I asked; that is not the response.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It is indeed the question you asked, Senator, and I have responded. In response to remarks made by other senators, this is not a concession. This is not an export concession, which I think is the matter raised by Senator Lees. This is about the taxing of the true player loss; about what the true player loss is. As we set out in the commitment that we went to the election on—and we have given effect to that—it is clear that the way in which the original bill was drafted did not take into account all of those issues, and as a result of this amendment we have given effect to what the original policy intent was.12:24:004547Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Senator Kemp has not answered the question that I asked. Senator Kemp has continued, as he has for the last couple of days, to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian public on this issue. The question that I asked was what the revenue implications of this amendment are, not what the revenue implications of the original bill were.We agree that the original forward estimates stand. The question is that the bill did not achieve the original revenue estimate; it diverged. This bill does not actually match your forecast. So the question is: where did the forecast go? What is the extra revenue you are picking up because of the mistake you made? Therefore, when you say, `We're returning to the original forward estimate,' we are agreeing with you. We accept that that is where you are returning to. The question is: as the bill stands now, before the amendment, what is the difference? How much extra money are you picking up than you originally planned for? So when you say, `This amendment returns you to the original forecast,' we agree. The question is: what is the divergence between the new revenue estimate and the one that is in the documents? That is the value of the concession you are giving to Crown through this amendment. I will wait for the minister to respond.12:25:004547Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, you have agreed with me that you understand there are no changes to the forward estimates. That is precisely the case because this was always the policy intent of the government. Senator Conroy, I am pleased to say, has said he agrees with me—there is no change to the forward estimates; that is the position I stated. This amendment restores the policy intent.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Restores from where?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It restores the policy intent, which we promised at the election, on how we would tax gambling. This fully gives effect to the policy which we went to the people on and which we had outlined to the people. It was clear that the bill brought before the parliament did not give proper effect to that policy and this amendment, as I said, now restores the position on which we went to the election.12:27:004547Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I want to ask Senator Kemp about a couple of points. What is the revenue gain to the casino industry, and specifically to Crown Casino, as a consequence of this amendment? What is the revenue gain to the gaming industry as a consequence of you presenting this amendment, which you have described as a minor technical amendment on previous occasions? Secondly, did you or the officers of the Treasurer, Mr Costello, have discussions with Crown executives, or any representative of Crown, about this particular issue? Did they explain to you, to the Treasurer or to officers of Treasury what this amendment was worth to Crown? Is it true that this amendment is worth tens of millions of dollars to the casino industry and, in particular, to Crown? We would appreciate those details. We could have avoided this, Senator Kemp, at least in part, if you had not insisted that these were minor technical amendments—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Revenue neutral.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Revenue neutral, minor technical amendments with no cost. When I have questioned you more closely about the financial implications of these 128 amendments, you have slightly retreated in that you have admitted they were not just minor technical amendments but that some of these amendments `reflect consultations' you have had with the wider community. We would like to know what were the consultations that you had with Crown Casino about these particular amendments and what the financial worth is to Crown Casino. Crown Casino must have given you or Treasury some figures about what these amendments are worth to them.12:29:004548Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The minister may think that he is going to be able to stonewall all day today and tomorrow and get to the weekend without actually fessing up, without actually putting on the record the answer to the questions Senator Sherry has just asked—that is, what is the revenue gain to the casinos and Crown? Why did you get your forward estimates on the bill itself wrong? That is the point, Senator Kemp. You have got the forecast for your forward estimates wrong. They do not reflect what the bill does. When you say that you are returning them to the original estimates, on that point there is agreement. But the key is: what is the value? How much money? Is it tens of millions of dollars that Crown is better off by because of this amendment? You will not be able to run; you will not be able to hide.On the substantive issue, I ask anybody listening and watching today, including other senators, to turn to page 98 of your ANTS document under the section `Gambling and lotteries'. I will read to the chamber and to anyone who is listening what it says in your `Gambling and lotteries' section:That is, the tax will apply to the difference between total ticket sales or bets taken by the operator of the gambling or lottery activity and the value of the prizes or winnings paid out.That was your policy intent. That is what your document says: `value of the prizes or winnings paid out'. The problem you have, Senator Kemp, is that your amendment reclassifies gifts and rebates on losses, not on winnings. Your amendment is about losses.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—A special deal for Crown.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is a special deal for your mates. It is quite clear that your amendment does not go to the words of your policy intent. You have consistently misled the Australian public and this chamber today, because your policy does not go to rebates on losses.RF4COOKSenator Cook—But not losses for anyone.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, losses only for the high rollers and the mates at the casino. You might think—just because you have written it in your legislation—that reclassifying rebates and losses is all of a sudden consistent with your policy intent, but it is here in black and white. Page 98 of your document is not about rebates on losses. It is not about running up bills at Crown Casino as part of your final tab at the end of the day and having them written off as a rebate. It is not about getting your hotel room paid for. It is not about getting any in-room services like videos, food or a massage—if you feel like a massage you call up the Crown and get the masseur up—paid for. Those services are going to be able to be passed off because of your amendment. It is not in the original bill, it was certainly not the original intent, but that is what you have tried to do in your amendment. You have actually classified losses and debts as winnings.RF4COOKSenator Cook—As prizes.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You have been exposed. You have tried to claim them as prizes—they are not—and you cannot get away with it because everybody is listening at the moment and they are watching you. They know the difference between a loss—Senator Margetts interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—We hope everybody is listening to the debate, Senator Margetts. You cannot get away with classifying debts and losses as prizes and winnings. It is not what you say in your document. It is there in black and white. You are trying to pass an amendment and trying to claim that black is white on this one. It is not going to wash. You have been exposed for looking after your mates. Ron has been on the phone, Jeff has been on the phone and Lloyd has been on the phone. They bankroll the Victorian Liberal Party—you know it. You have a state election coming up and what you have wanted to do is give them a bit of money so they can kick into your coffers in Victoria later this year.12:33:004549Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of all the disgraceful speeches that Senator Conroy has made in this chamber, that must really have to be one of the lowest. Senator Conroy, you know that the allegations you made are untrue. This might be the way that the Labor Party operates; it is not the way the Liberal Party and the coalition operate. What you are saying is absolutely untrue. It is a pity that a serious debate has to sink this low, but inevitably it does with Senator Conroy. A couple of issues were raised. Let me tackle them. One was the issue of privilege in relation to the confidential submission that was made to the Senate select committee. I have never seen that submission.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Have any of your staff seen it?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I was not aware that there was a submission, Senator, and I am not aware whether any of my staff have seen it. Senator Lees asked how that confidential submission to a Senate select committee was leaked. If the Senate wants to conduct a full inquiry, I hope that all senators—Senator Sherry and Senator Conroy—will take part in that because I think it is an important issue that was raised. I for one would welcome an inquiry into how a confidential submission to a Senate select committee happened to be leaked. I hope that Senator Conroy when he stands up will also say that he would welcome such an inquiry. I think it does go to the issue of whether people can make submis sions to Senate select committees and how those submissions are treated. I put it on the record—and I hope you will, Senator Conroy—that I would welcome an inquiry on how this particular document happened to be leaked.Let me make it clear that I have had no discussions with Crown. I am not aware of any meeting with the Treasurer. I understand there were meetings of Treasury with the Casinos Association about the amendments and the way the legislation as drafted applies to gambling. This was the basis on which discussions were held with the Australian Casinos Association. As a result of those discussions, it was pointed out—to summarise it—to the Treasury that the legislation as drafted did not give proper effect to the policy position that was outlined by the government; hence the changes have been made. Senator Conroy quoted from the ANTS package. Regrettably, he did not read the full text of what was stated there, and this is fairly typical of Senator Conroy when he gets excited and carried away. From memory, Senator Conroy did not indicate a key phrase. He left out a sentence, which rather throws some different perspective—Senator Cook interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know this is probably hurting you, Senator Cook, but let me read what Senator Conroy did not bother to read out. He did not bother to read out the following statement:The GST will apply to the operator's margin of these activities, not to the prizes paid out.Senator Conroy read all succeeding comments, but not that comment which throws some different perspective on it. That phrase applies to the margin.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Not at all. It is a rebate; it is not a prize. They have lost. A prize you get when you win. These are rebates for losses.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know that this might be of concern to Senator Conroy, but we are giving effect to the policy which this government took to the election. The tax is applied on the margin. We have ensured in looking at the margin that the margin is properly as sessed. That is precisely what we have done. Senator Conroy may not like that, but that is the full position.It is most unfortunate that when you get up you constantly impute the illest possible motives to people. It might suit the short-term politics that the Labor Party relentlessly runs, but it does not reflect reality. For the Labor Party with its record to get up and attack the coalition government in the way that it has, I totally and absolutely reject. The allegations are appalling; they are untrue and add nothing to the debate.Senator Conroy has agreed. He probably made a mistake on this and will undoubtedly be ticked off by his colleagues when he leaves the chamber, but he made a very important statement. He understands and agrees there are no changes to the forward estimates. That was a very important statement made by Senator Conroy. If he had seen the glares coming from Senator Sherry and Senator Cook, he would have been somewhat horrified.The Hansard will show that, after all the carryings on from Senator Sherry and the histrionics from Senator Cook, Senator Conroy got up and, encouraged by his colleagues, he too indulged in the arm waving and the shock horror. But he did make a very important concession and I welcome that. Senator Conroy stood up and said, `Yes, yes, Senator Kemp. I agree there is no change to the forward estimates.'3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No. You have returned them, you idiot.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What does that imply? I know this is embarrassing for you, Senator Conroy, because you have blown it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Conroy, you will have your chance further in the debate.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have blown it. You had your chance and you have blown it. You said, `I know there is no change to the forward estimates. I agree there is no change to the forward estimates.' What follows from that?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You have returned them to their rightful position.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Could we have a little bit of silence from you, Senator Conroy, because you have comprehensively blown it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Minister, please address your comments through the chair. Senator Conroy, you will have your chance in the debate.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you. He is very provocative. I am just taking Senator Conroy through how he has comprehensively blown the Labor case. The Labor Party has to be careful who it gets up to deal with these issues, because Senator Conroy said, `I agree there is no change to the forward estimates. Yes, Senator Kemp, we agree there is no change to the forward estimates.' What does that imply? That we are giving effect to the policy intent.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No, not at all.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you have proven my case. I could not have welcomed a more supportive statement than the one you made: `Yes, yes, Senator Kemp. I agree there is no change in the forward estimates.' Because, when you made that statement, at the same time you effectively agreed—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You can stand there and flap your lips for the next ten minutes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Conroy!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you for your protection, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The minister should address his remarks through the chair. It would assist the debate.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I thanked you for your protection. I thought I was addressing the chair.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. You are doing very well.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think I am doing well, too. I also welcome your expression of support.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am not commenting on the merit of the argument.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you have comprehensively blown it.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You are the only person in the building.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Conroy! You will have your opportunity to address this issue later in the debate.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—This is a serious issue. I thought the Labor Party were going to roll out the top guns, but they rolled out Senator Conroy—the pop gun. What in fact happened was that Senator Conroy agreed with my position. The position I have put is that this gives effect to the policy intent. There is no change to the forward estimates and Senator Conroy agreed with me that there was no change to the forward estimates. Therefore, it logically follows that you also agreed with me—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That's where you blew it. You took a jump and tried to say I agreed with you on it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—There can be no other way of interpreting your comments. When you said that, you agreed that we were giving effect to the policy intent on which we went to the election. When you said that, you blew the Labor Party case absolutely sky high. That is the danger of allowing someone like Senator Conroy loose. That is the trouble. You did not stick to the script; you made it very clear, as you should have. You made this comment and you agreed with me that we had not changed the forward estimates. There is no change to the forward estimates and, therefore, it logically followed—An opposition senator interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I know it is embarrassing for you that, after ten minutes during which you thought you were on a big run, Senator Conroy has comprehensively blown the Labor Party case sky high. In conclusion, I would welcome an inquiry into the leaking.Consideration interrupted; progress reported.Bills4551s2144551Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:46:004551Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to table a report and make a brief statement.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Leave is granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I table a report by World Vision, entitled Kosovo: the women and children . It has been prepared, primarily, by Brenda Fitzpatrick from World Vision Australia and is a report on a recent mission to Albania for the specific purpose of looking into the situation of women and children who are refugees.I was honoured to accompany that mission, although I left Albania on my fourth day and these people spent much more time there. They heard the harrowing and oftentimes very sad and chilling tales of these brave refugees. We saw refugees in a variety of circumstances: in camps, hostels, hotels, a sports stadium and hospital situations. I commend this report to the Senate and urge all senators to read it. I thank those senators who were at the earlier briefing with World Vision members. I particularly draw your attention to the recommendations contained in the report.12:47:004551Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—In speaking today about this special bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 , I wish first of all to reaffirm the bipartisan approach that the opposition has taken in this situation.The humanitarian crisis in the Balkans has now reached previously unthinkable proportions, with close to three-quarters of a million people displaced from their homeland and a list of atrocities and family tragedies that grows with each day. At a time like this, it is necessary to set aside differences and focus upon those who are most in need. Australia is a wealthy, mature, culturally diverse nation, and it is imperative that we act as such, without reservations and with altruism foremost in our minds. Therefore, for the record, I reaffirm the opposition's in principle support for this legislation, designed to provide assistance to some 4,000 displaced refugees from Kosovo should the need arise to accommodate them in Australia.Having set on the record our support for this stance, I want to emphasise to the government that it now has a great responsibility to look after these refugees not only if they arrive on our shores, but also if it is decided it is best for them to stay close to their homeland. It is clear from the government's actions that, while its intent was good, many of the decisions taken were reactive and, ultimately, possibly detrimental to the cause of these refugees. The pause in the humanitarian operation initiated by the UNHCR has given the government a second chance to iron out all the problems with its operation and, most importantly, it now has the time to clearly think about the consequences of its decisions.There are several areas that could and should be improved upon with regard to Australia's response to this humanitarian crisis. The opposition is still of the opinion that the government's efforts have not gone far enough and are still too reactive given the pace at which this crisis continues to grow and given that this human tragedy is spilling over to neighbouring nations. It is important that the government keeps an open mind to new developments and that the focus is maintained in the best interests of the refugees. In this instance, the eyes of the world are upon us and Australia has an enviable record when it comes to assisting those who are less fortunate. We must make sure that we build on that reputation and that our wealth and resources are shared for causes such as this.As part of keeping an open mind to the needs of the refugees, the opposition calls on the government to consider an expansion of the permanent humanitarian program to cater for the Kosovo refugees. Temporary residence may not be the appropriate answer to cater for these poor people, especially if the conflict escalates and ground troops are used. Should this happen, the likelihood of a protracted conflict in the region will increase and the need for a more permanent solution for refugee accommodation will certainly be required.While, on the surface, it may seem that we are facilitating the work of Slobodan Milosevic by providing a permanent safe haven for those he is trying to remove from Kosovo, in reality there will be many refugees who will not be able to return to their homeland even after the end of hostilities. Some will have nothing and no-one to go back to, some may face persecution if they return and some will have developed ties to and within Australia after many months here and may feel settled and secure in our country.Already, the UNHCR has begun to reassemble family units among the Kosovo refugees. This is a sad and unforgiving task, but it aims to bring some normality back into the lives of thousands of people who, until now, have not only tried to survive but have also been burdened with the thought of never seeing their families and loved ones again. These are the sorts of people who require our help and compassion. The government will have to consider the wisdom of sending them back against their wishes once the conflict is over, whenever that may be. While the answers are not easy, what we clearly say is that an open mind and an open heart must be kept.The Australian Labor Party when in government understood this situation and in 1995 decided to expand its humanitarian intake by borrowing from forward programs to cater for the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was a good decision. Those who came over under this scheme have now become productive members of our community and they are proud to call Australia their new home.The opposition has examined the bill that is before the Senate today. We note the intent of the government to safeguard the integrity of the migration program by providing broad discretionary powers to the minister. These powers are designed to ensure that those refugees accepted in Australia comply with all character and criminal checks. These provisions are desirable as we must ensure that those people that we choose to accept are the needy and those looking for a safe haven from the tragedies of war.We also note that the bill quite clearly prevents the refugees from applying for any other form of protection visa while holding a temporary safe haven visa. The opposition has always held reservations in cases such as these where opportunities for individual choice are restricted. We note, however, that the bill contains provisions for the minister to effectively override these considerations and allow a person or group of people to apply for different protection visa classes should their circumstances warrant it.The opposition asks the minister to use these broad discretionary powers with wisdom and generosity, keeping in mind that these refugees' first choice would have been to remain in their country and continue to lead peaceful and productive lives. Their decision to seek asylum in Australia, if they choose to do so, should be interpreted by the minister as an act of desperation and a wish to rebuild a new life.Another aspect of this legislation that concerns the opposition is the inclusion of a six-month sunset clause on the safe haven visas. Again, I note the intent of the government to safeguard our migration program. However, if the situation in Kosovo deteriorates further, this six-month sunset clause will prove unrealistic and Australia may well breach international conventions on the rights of refugees.To ensure that this situation does not eventuate, the opposition calls on the minister to exercise his powers without delay following the expiry of the sunset clause should the hostilities not be resolved. At that stage, the government will need to realise that a permanent solution to the fate of the 4,000 refugees is required and that all avenues of appeal and asylum determination must then be opened for these people.Under our international obligations and our moral obligations as a responsible nation, we are bound to ensure the safety of these refugees and we must not cause unnecessary trauma and anxiety in these people's minds about their fate. In the event that our assistance in accommodating these refugees is no longer required or that alternative arrangements are reached by the UNHCR in the meantime, the question will then arise as to what to do in terms of Australia's aid effort. Currently, the monetary element to which the government has committed itself is $6 million. This figure, given the recent developments and the gravity of the situation, seems more and more inappropriate as each day goes by.The government needs to realise that this is no longer a game of numbers and figures but is a serious attempt to alleviate a crisis of global proportions. In the event of the UNHCR no longer requiring our logistical assistance in relocating the refugees, the opposition calls on the government not to rescind its offer of assistance and to donate to humanitarian agencies the total worth of the aid package as Australia's contribution to solving the Kosovo crisis.While there are no figures attached to this resolution, it is expected that it might comprise the overall costs that would have been associated with relocating, housing, feeding and supporting the 4,000 refugees while in Australia. The final figure may, of course, run into many millions of dollars but, given the circumstances of this tragedy and the alternatives in terms of loss of human life and what is essentially the displacement of a whole nation, we say that it is the least a country like Australia can provide in assistance. It is with those considerations and issues in mind that the opposition gives its support to the passage of this bill.13:01:004553Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Senate is considering the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 brought forward by the government to enable them to offer temporary safe haven visas at this stage to people who have been displaced from Kosovo as part of the current escalation of conflict in that region and applies specifically to those who have been displaced since the US-NATO bombing campaign started. It is unfortunate that we have a specifically limited time frame to debate this legislation—we have until only 2 o'clock—because it is very important. It is self-evident that it deals with a matter of extreme interest to the Australian community and on which many people in the community have quite strong opinions and have a great deal of interest in seeing significant assistance being provided to refugees in the Balkans at the moment.Indeed, it is probably not unreasonable to suggest that it is because of that great degree of concern within the Australian community that the government came forward with this initiative to offer 4,000 temporary places. So it is a shame that we do not have time to go into as much detail of the bill as would be desirable. If we do run short of time, I would hope that the government and, I am sure, the Democrats would be quite happy to use an hour of Senate time tomorrow, setting aside the tax debate for a little while, to deal with this issue. I notice there are a number of speakers on the speakers list.The bill is important not just because people are interested in helping refugees in Kosovo; it is equally important because of its content. The bill has some potentially very far-reaching measures. It is easy to dress it up and say that this is just the government on behalf of the Australian people offering a helping hand to people in need. I am sure that is partly the government's intent, but the bill has some very significant potential ramifications. Indeed, the whole concept of offering only temporary assistance to refugees in itself has potentially significant ramifications for long-term refugee policy in Australia. That being the case, it is very dangerous for the Senate to just wave it through as a goodwill measure on the part of the government. There are a lot of potentially very serious, very significant and long-term ramifications from proceeding down this path.The view of the Democrats is that this bill is unnecessary. There is no need to have special legislation for Australia to offer assistance to refugees from Kosovo. We can offer assistance today by providing permanent places in Australia. Indeed, the government has provided permanent places for 200 refugee families, as it announced last week, and the Democrats welcome that. The big problem with that is that it is not 200 extra places as part of our refugee humanitarian program; it is 200 places specifically earmarked for Kosovo refugees out of the existing program which means that 200 other families elsewhere in the world will now miss out. The Democrats believe it is essential that the overall size of our refugee and humanitarian intake program be expanded as part of the things that need to be done to assist with this current crisis.I did have a second reading amendment circulated seeking to have a Senate vote establishing that principle. However, because of the government's inability to get this legislation brought on during normal debate in the Senate, and because we have to debate it in what is euphemistically called the `non-controversial legislation' lunchtime debate where we are not able to call a division on anything in the bill, I indicate to the Senate that I will not proceed with that second reading amendment because I think it is important enough to call a division on. I will do it by way of notice of motion or some other mechanism in the not too distant future, and as an indication of the Democrats' willingness to be cooperative about this matter, despite our very serious and significant concerns about some of the shortcomings of the bill.Senator Faulkner indicated at the start of his contribution that it is important for us as a nation to focus on those most in need and with altruism foremost in our mind. I certainly agree with those words. That being so, we need to look at how best to address that need. It is the view of the Democrats that this bill is clearly not the best way. The best way to help these refugees is to provide extra funding and technical assistance where they are now. Again, I acknowledge the commitment that the government has made to date of $6 million in that regard. That is one way. The other is to provide genuine, permanent refugee places under Australia's program as it already exists. As I have already said, this should be by way of increasing the size of the program.Offering temporary haven to these people, as Senator Faulkner pointed out, has a number of dangers which may well lead to increasing the trauma they have suffered. People who work with refugees know that one of the traumas for refugees is the event that forced them out of their homes. That is a very traumatic immediate event. The other major traumas that refugees and refugee families suffer are the ongoing sense of displacement, the ongoing uncertainty about their future, the ongoing loss of control about where they can call home and what is going to become of them.There is a danger with the temporary haven approach that we will be exacerbating that trauma, that we will have people here for an indeterminate length of time with no control over their future. Obviously they will be able to return whenever they want, but they will have very little or no control over how long they can stay. They will be completely at the mercy of the government and the minister as to how long they can stay here, and they will be unable to apply for a humanitarian visa or any other visa while they are here. There is a small exception to that in the legislation but, as the minister's second reading speech pointed out, the minister will only allow an exemption to that policy under exceptional circumstances—that does not exactly give great cause for hope that he will exercise that discretion in a large number of cases. We have the problem that offering temporary haven may well exacerbate the uncertainty that these refugee people have over their future.It is misleading to use the label `refugee' in the context of this legislation because the main purpose of this bill is to prevent people from claiming refugee status. The 4,000 people who come here through utilising the power established via this legislation will specifically be prevented from claiming refugee status. They will basically be saying, `We are not refugees' or `If we are refugees, we are not going to claim it in Australia.' To claim refugee status, they will need to go offshore and be part of the queue for a not very sizeable number of spaces. Indeed, some of the problems with offering temporary asylum were well outlined by Minister Ruddock and Minister Downer before the Prime Minister's backflip on this issue earlier in the month. Other refugee organisations, and Amnesty International, have highlighted these problems. I emphasise that those problems are just with the general concept of offering temporary safe haven.The Bills Digest from the parliamentary library deals with some of these and it briefly highlights, by way of general comment, some of the difficulties that may arise in relation to this legislation and the dangers involved in not meeting the crucial principle of the non-refoulement of people, which basically means not returning refugees to a place where they are still in danger. If there is a very clear potential conflict the bill in itself does not mean that that will happen. It does not automatically mean that refugees or what would otherwise be refugees—the holders of safe haven visas—will be sent back against their will, but it gives the minister the power to do that.It is all very nice to have commitments saying, `We will not do that, we will call on the government not to do that,' but it gives the minister the power to do that. Again, it leaves the future of these refugees very much in the hands of the minister. For all the exhortations one might make about the humanitarian approach of the minister—broadly speaking, I would not demur from those—he is not the only person in the government. I am sorry to say that, as much as I would like to have goodwill in relation to an issue such as this, I think it is very difficult to believe that all people in the government are motivated completely by humanitarian concerns in the treatment of refugee issues.I refer the Senate to an article by Richard McGregor in the Australian of 13 April which specifically deals with the government's reversal on the Kosovo refugees and going down this new route of offering temporary humanitarian assistance. It also deals with the fact that this approach of the government does not signal a softening on refugee issues. Indeed, the article highlights that our immigration policy is getting tougher, particularly for refugees. The approach of the government on refugee issues broadly is not one that makes one feel that humanitarian concerns are always at the top of the list. Passing a piece of legislation which empowers the minister to ignore humanitarian concerns is something that needs to be highlighted and it needs to be recognised that that is what we are doing.I also point to Alert Digest No. 7 of this month which draws the attention of senators to provisions in the bill which may be considered to `trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties and make those rights unduly dependent on nonreviewable decisions.' Because this is a specific, deliberate policy decision of the government, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills did not see it as appropriate to comment further on that. It is important to emphasise that that is what this bill does. This bill offers temporary safe haven. Inasmuch as it may provide some relief from immediate suffering, the Democrats welcome that. We reiterate that to do that it is not necessary to pass this bill. We can bring people in immediately under our existing refugee program.It is important again to emphasise what else is actually being done as part of this bill in establishing this temporary safe haven. The minister can reduce the length of temporary safe haven visas without appeal, solely on the grounds that he believes temporary safe haven is no longer necessary. There are no criteria he needs to measure in relation to that. He does not specifically have to address the principle of non-refoulement. I note that Senator Margetts has an amendment in the committee stage which goes part of the way to redressing that in terms of requiring the minister to ensure that there has been a significant change of circumstances indicating that the country is more stable and that the changes are durable and fundamental. That is welcomed, but there is a lot more to refugees and dangers in returning home than simply being able to say, `Well, the war has stopped, so off you go.'I think the World Vision report that my colleague Senator Stott Despoja tabled just previously highlights that there are a lot of very personal and very traumatic experiences that people endure. That World Vision report particularly highlights women and children. There is a lot in terms of a place not being safe to return to on an individual level and personal level that may have very little to do with whether or not the war has actually stopped. So it is a fundamental issue. This legislation empowers the minister to send people back to somewhere where they believe they are not safe and it seeks to enable him to do that without any appeal.Holders of these visas, as I have already said, cannot apply for refugee status. They cannot apply for any other visa without going offshore. The minister can cancel the visa without regard to natural justice—it is specifically in the legislation. And that decision is not appealable or reviewable—or the legislation seeks to enable that to be the case. A decision by the minister to shorten or extend a visa is not reviewable. He has no duty to consider any request for a visa extension due to personal circumstances. Again, he may, but he does not have to. Obviously, political issues can come into play here.The minister can cancel or refuse to grant a visa on character grounds without appeal, without notice, without natural justice. The assessment of what makes someone's character undesirable can include something as general as past and present general conduct, that their presence may prejudice Australia's international relations or that they have been sentenced to 12 months gaol or more. The definition of gaol includes residential drug rehab or residential programs for the mentally ill. I know a number of these are similar to existing legislation, but remember that we are talking about refugees here. This enables the minister to cancel the visa solely on those grounds. Perhaps even more dramatically, if a person has their visa cancelled on character grounds, this automatically extends to each immediate family member without even any requirement for notice to have been given. The whole family is immediately able to have their visas cancelled without review and without notice. I think it is important to emphasise that those powers are being put in there.One of the significant objectives of this bill is to create a class of visa holders who can be removed easily with minimum cost and with no regard for the opportunity for appeal. The legislation seeks to do this by insulating the minister from the fetters of the rule of law when making certain decisions concerning the granting and termination of the class of visa and granting him more power to cancel visas of those he considers undesirable. It is debatable whether or not this objective will be achievable. It is quite possible that visa holders may still be able to bring writs or injunctions in the High Court, despite this government's ongoing attempts to restrict the ability of people—refugees and other migrants—to appeal to the courts. They have found it a bit difficult to date to stop people being able to go to the High Court because of the awkward and annoying thing of the Australian Constitution. It will be interesting to see whether or not that may still apply in relation to this bill.The issue of refugees which this bill relates to is something that I think is of great significance if we are to take human rights seriously. As a nation we have had an unfortunate debate in the last couple of years when we have really had to question whether or not as a nation we are welcoming towards refugees any more—whether we are welcoming towards migrants. I do want to express my pleasure, my gratitude to the large proportion of the Australian community who have indicated that we are a generous nation, that we do want to help people in need. And I hope we can recognise that and hold on to it so that that does not just dissipate as this crisis slips off the front pages. I hope it is an ongoing commitment to assisting people in need and it does not just apply to white Europeans but we have a similar level of concern for people in Asia, for people in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere.There are a number of other issues I would like to go into which I do not have time to because of circumstances. There are some significant issues in terms of the United Nations protocols and conclusions on international protection and refugee status that I think allow the government to basically ignore those international conventions. That is a matter of great concern to the Democrats. I hope to have the opportunity to ask for some clarification by the government on some of those issues in the committee stage of the debate. 13:21:004557Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—On 6 April 1999 the government committed to accept 4,000 Kosovar refugees. The provisions of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 allow for a visa class to be known as class UJ, temporary safe haven visa. These visas will be temporary only. A holder will not be able to apply for another visa class unless the minister grants permission to do so in the public interest. The minister's decision to allow a person to make or not to make an application for another type of visa will not be judicially reviewable. The minister will decide when the visas are no longer valid. The decision will not be judicially reviewable.The power to remove persons once a visa is deemed no longer valid will be given to the department. The minister will also have the power to refuse to grant or to cancel a person's temporary safe haven visa based on character grounds. This decision will apply to each member of the immediate family of the person and will not be reviewable. So, no matter what the implications for each of the members of that family, it will not be reviewable.I would like to congratulate the government, however, on their efforts so far on several counts. The minister has responded swiftly to the call from UNHCR to offer to take refugees from the Kosovo crisis. Also, there has been a high level assessment team sent to Macedonia to assist with preparations for the possible evacuation of Kosovar refugees to Australia. The government are to be congratulated that the legislation has been presented to the parliament for debate so swiftly such that the conditions and safeguards will be in place before refugees arrive, if they do arrive. The government are to be congratulated that the act and regulations would minimise administrative tasks to be undertaken by the refugees. There would be no need to fill in forms for the initial application or for the renewal of visas. This may sound like an insignificant detail, but for a refugee the fewer bureaucratic requirements they have to fulfil the better. We know that the situation many of the refugees find themselves in is that they currently have no docu ments with them. Their documents have been removed, so it would be very difficult for them to fill in the normal kinds of application forms that would be required for haven in Australia.The Greens (WA) do have several concerns. As the bill stands, the minister and the minister alone has the power to decide when the Kosovar refugees will be made to return home. It is not a sufficiently accountable mechanism that the return of persons to Kosovo be contingent upon whether or not in the minister's opinion temporary safe haven in Australia is no longer necessary. That is from schedule 1 of the bill. The government has expressed its concern that these people, who have left their homes in traumatic circumstances, be provided with a safe and stable retreat where they will be protected from further exposure to traumatic events and will therefore be able to continue their lives with minimal further disruption. This, of course, is a very laudable aim, and one that government and non-government organisations are working hard towards.It is one thing, however, to create stability through physical surroundings and another thing to create stability through the psychological certainty of knowing that you will not be sent home before enduring stable conditions have returned to your country, or perhaps even your part of the country. To safeguard against this happening, greater transparency and objective ability to verify need to be built into the decision of the minister. To this end, I will be moving an amendment that the minister be required to present a case that his or her decision meets various criteria as outlined in conclusion 69 of the executive committee of the UNHCR.The Greens (WA) are also concerned that the minister's decision to extend or shorten the visa term will not be reviewable. I am not at all comfortable with this provision, but I understand that the government wishes to make the process of managing the Kosovar refugees in Australia as expeditious as possible. We all know that reviews can take time. It is intended in any case that the introduction of greater accountability in the minister's decision will minimise any need for a review. I hope, therefore, that I will receive support in amending the minister's accountability requirements.Whilst I congratulate the government for offering help to Kosovar refugees, I hope that the provision of temporary protection will not become a trend. These people are refugees; that is demonstrably and palpably so. Under the refugee convention they have a right to permanent protection, and Australia accepts this standard in domestic law, that is, permanent protection if they so seek it. With such massive, sudden movements of refugees, it should be possible that Australia increase its humanitarian quota to respond in a way that is compassionate and that conforms to international law, that is, in a way that offers permanent resettlement and its consequent rights and privileges. It is a pity that we are restricted in the way we can deal with amendments in this lunchtime debate, because I would certainly be supportive of Senator Bartlett's amendment to that end.It is pertinent to take note, in respect of the points I have mentioned, that Canada will not be enacting legislation for the Kosovar refugees that it accepts. This is simply because Canada has found that temporary protection for refugees is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada's alternative to temporary status has been to offer visitor visas to Kosovar refugees, giving them the freedom to subsequently apply for permanent residency through the normal refugee application process. This may not be the appropriate response for the Australian government, but it does highlight the fact that temporary protection for refugees is not ideal human rights practice. The high commissioner has asked Australia to take Kosovar refugees on a temporary basis only, and this bears on the situation. I also recognise that some latitude has been given to the minister to allow certain persons, in the public interest, to apply for permanent protection. I do not think this goes far enough, however, and we will be moving an amendment to broaden the person's ability to apply to stay permanently and to be treated on a case basis. In any case, I would certainly hate to think that with the passing of this bill the government considered that it had some degree of mandate for treating future refugees on a similar temporary basis. I hope I am not pre-empting things here, but a prime example that springs to mind is that of the East Timorese people.I realise that this whole debate is hypothetical to some extent. If it becomes apparent that Australia's assistance will not be needed to care for Kosovar refugees in Australia, I would welcome any commitment by the government that the money be allocated instead to the aid efforts in Kosovo itself. In that, I would agree with Senator Faulkner's proposal for the transfer of those funds. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues to remind governments that assistance to rebuild Kosovo is going to extend far beyond the disappearance of news from the headlines. If money can be found to assist Kosovar refugees onshore, then this money can be earmarked for contributing to long-term rebuilding efforts in Kosovo. I urge the government to provide a commitment to do this.The issue of refugees from Kosovo is obviously a very real issue for many people. We have seen the pictures nightly on our television screens and in our newspapers and have read the very traumatic stories. We realise that the issue of the future of Kosovo is going to be very complex and very traumatic for all people concerned. The opinion has been expressed by a number of people that it is important, where possible, that the refugees stay close to Kosovo. Many of the refugees, where they have been interviewed, have indicated that they would like to stay close to Kosovo and that they would not like to cut their ties with Kosovo. In many instances I guess the process of choosing the 4,000 potential refugees in Australia would likely relate to whether or not those people feel that they have some interest in making that move—temporarily at least—or whether they might have families, connections or some interest in Australia.I would like to think that the concept of the visibility of the problem in Kosovo should be uppermost in many people's minds and that we will not be part of a process to take the problem out of sight and out of mind. How ever, given that the offer is there, if there are 4,000 people who choose to come to Australia and if the UNHCR suggests that this is the right and proper thing to do at that time, I would urge the government to treat those people as proper refugees. I would urge the government to enable the people from within those 4,000 to be able to argue their case if they know and they can prove that their circumstances will mean that, even if it might be safe for a broad category of refugees to return, it will be unsafe for them to return.We know the kinds of circumstances that have occurred because we have seen them on our television screens. We know that the individual circumstances or the circumstances of villages or of other parts of that country are very traumatic. We know that if it is possible to solve the broad political problems, and my feelings are that there are probably broad political, historical and economic problems to deal with in an open way—going back to the source of the problems, dealing with them, trying to make peace and trying to deal with the resolution of conflict—there will still be problems within those countries which put people's lives at constant risk. I would like to think that people will not be forced to leave their temporary haven in Australia, and go back to where their lives will continue to be at risk as a result of that, simply because they are in a broad category and cannot be looked at according to their own circumstances as legitimate refugees.I know that on many occasions in the past Senator Harradine has been very strong on these issues and I am not even in a position to know whether Senator Harradine has had a chance to see the proposals for my first or second amendments. I know that the government has indicated that it is not prepared to support the second amendment at this stage, but I would like to think that there is still a chance of getting approval on the second amendment and I would urge support from honourable senators on the issue of being able to deal with people by treating their cases on their merits without putting them at undue risk simply because they are in a category of 4,000. 13:34:004560Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I begin, as other speakers have begun so far, by saying that, as I understand it, everybody in the chamber agrees with the government's intention of helping people from Kosovo and that the government is to be congratulated on that. I also acknowledge the work that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, has done. He is a man with whom I have sat on committees over the years and who is clearly a person of compassion. So, as Senator Faulkner said on behalf of the opposition, we are behind the government's intentions to relieve the situation amongst the people fleeing from Kosovo—and that, I think, is a proper way to begin this speech. Senator Faulkner went on to say that the opposition has some problems with the legislation in its current terms, Senator Bartlett, on behalf of the Democrats, said the same thing and Senator Margetts has some problems with the legislation which should be looked at.The Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 has been brought on at a time when non-controversial legislation is normally brought on. I am not sure that gives the right significance to this legislation. This is legislation that should be debated at length. We are presently debating the GST, which is of course vital legislation and which you, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, would understand in all its ramifications more than most people not only here but generally, so you understand the importance of the debate about the goods and services tax and the new tax system. That deals with issues of money—how much money is going to be paid out and who is going to get that money; all very important stuff—but this legislation deals with people's lives, their futures and their ability to get away from an absolutely dreadful situation. I see Senator Schacht here. He will be speaking later on and I think he will say things about that. Senator Stott Despoja has told us of her experiences.The message coming back is that this is a fearful and dreadful situation, a real horror in the true sense of the word. To debate this issue in the short term that is proposed seems to, as I say, signify an importance or a weight that is insufficient. Certainly more time should be made available to debate these issues, and soon, because this is urgent legislation.But even at a technical level there are some great issues raised by this bill. It anticipates in many ways a debate we are going to have later on about the extent to which there ought to be quality control exercised by the courts over the administration of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This bill seeks to send the way in which the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is administered back to the pre-Senator Ray days, if I can put it that way.In the eighties—as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson—the decision as to who did or did not come to Australia was left very much up to the minister. During the time that Senator Ray was minister, he began the process of saying, `There ought to be standards, there ought to be criteria, according to which people can come to Australia. If they meet that criteria they can come. If they do not meet that criteria they cannot come.'People could see the criteria, could see the basis upon which decisions were made, could see that basis upon which people were brought here, could see the basis upon which people were refused. That made the whole system much better and much more open. It took a lot of pressure off the minister, who would otherwise have had to make the decision. I think that things worked very well.There has been a tendency to go back to that system where the minister makes the decisions. If you look at this piece of legislation, there are clauses in it which clearly demonstrate what I am saying. I will go through them. In schedule 1 of the bill—in fact, there is only one schedule to this bill, as I remember it—proposed section 37A(5) says:(5) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (2) in respect of any non-citizen, whether he or she is requested to do so by the non-citizen or by any other person, or in any other circumstances.It is a clause that is directed straight at any ability of people to have a review of the way they are to be treated. Clause 91H says the same sort of thing. Clause 91K is another. Clause 91L, subsection (2) says:(2) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.That talks about an application that is made under that section. Subsection (6) of 91L says:(6) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (1) in respect of any non-citizen, whether he or she is requested to do so by the non-citizen or by any other person, or in any other circumstances.So the whole thrust of this bill is to take away the ability of the courts to exercise that quality control which is their traditional function. Clause 10 says:10 Section 337 (at the end of the definition of Part 5 reviewable decision )Add "but does not include a decision to refuse to grant, or to cancel, a temporary safe haven visa".It is quite clear that this bill wants to go away from the trend of the open exercise of migration affairs set under Senator Ray back to having the minister make all of the decisions. As I say, the minister is a person for whom I have great respect, who has a tradition of humanitarian concerns. But, nevertheless, it is not good to be going back to having him be the sole maker of decisions which affect the lives and the futures of people like those who are fleeing from Kosovo.I just want to say something about the people who are fleeing from Kosovo. We think very much in terms of giving humanitarian aid. We think that the only benefit in us taking people from Kosovo is to them, that somehow we gain no benefit from it. I propose that the people most likely to help Australia are people like the refugees from Kosovo, people who are highly skilled, who have been forced to flee and who may be brought here.I want to tell a little story. We were talking about this last night. It is about a young man—who I came to know when he was much older and I was much younger—who fled from Austria at the outbreak of the war. He was from the Jewish community and had to flee. It was proposed to him, `We will get you out of there, but you've got to do something for us.' He said, `Yes, what is that?' He was told, `You have got to go down to a house and get some documents, because we think these documents are very important.' So he went down to the house and got these documents—and they were genuine documents, of course—and put them in a brown envelope. He translated the name of the person who had written these documents, and he put on the documents `A. Stone'. That was the translation of the person's name, which was Einstein.Steve Strauss, who later became a judge of the Family Court of Australia, had a very distinguished career. Steve has a great legal mind; he is now retired and is still doing great work. He probably was not as good at physics as Einstein, who had gone to America as had many people from Europe during the 1930s and since. Steve Strauss came here on the Dunera and was as good as the best of the people on the Dunera.When we talk about people fleeing the situation in Kosovo, we are not simply talking about people whom we are going to help. They are people who well may come to help us. If we are going to do the right thing in the general moral and political sense, then we ought to make sure they come here as welcome visitors. The difficulty with this legislation is in its terms, which seem a bit mean because they say, `You can come for only a particular period of time. When you come here, we are going to put tremendous limits on the rights you might have as citizens of the world who are fleeing your country.'This bill is consistent with the coalition's reaction to the Tiananmen Square issue. That is something we can all remember. When the tanks rolled in and broke up the student movement in Tiananmen Square, a lot of students were left here, and a lot of students fled to Australia. On the initiative of the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, they remained here. There was tremendous concern about the effect they might have on our migration program, but the people who came here have added to the quality of life in this country. They have jobs, they have taken initiatives which have helped this place, and they are now of no concern to anybody. They have been a very helpful addition to our population. If this legislation is a reaction to Tiananmen Square and our initiatives after that, then it is a wrong reaction.I have quoted two examples, but there are others. I remember the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, and next year we will have the Olympic Games here again. Mr Acting Deputy President, we perhaps are a couple of people in this chamber who can remember the 1956 games quite clearly. You will remember the famous water polo match between the Russians and the Hungarians, and how the Hungarians stayed on afterwards. Our sports program has gained greatly because of that. Franz Stampl I think came to Australia at that time. You could go through a list of people who have come from countries tortured by war and who have helped us magnificently.Given that context, to welcome these people here as the government intends is a good thing and is to be much praised. To welcome them here under the conditions that are set out in this legislation taints—and I use that word advisedly—that great act of generosity and humanitarianism that we as Australians have exhibited by making this offer. This bill needs to go through the committee stages, and the Senate needs some time to examine it.I am going to sit down now so that Senator McKiernan—a very eminent and learned senator in this area—can have some time to speak. I think it would be a blot on the Senate simply to put this bill through without a proper discussion on the basis that we have to get onto other matters which include the GST. As I said at the start, the GST is a most important bill, but when you think of our spirits, our souls, our milieu as Australians, we ought to be talking about this legislation pretty solidly and not pushing it through just now.13:51:004562McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I thank my colleague Senator Cooney for giving me the opportunity to make a short contribution to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 . It will be a short contribution because we are anxious to conclude the second reading debate at this time. I wish I had more time for it. I am not so certain that what we are doing—hopefully, with the passage of this legislation—is what we ought to be doing to alleviate the dreadful situation that is apparent in Kosovo and in its neighbouring countries.I, like earlier speakers, also have grave reservations about the temporary safe haven class of visa coming into existence in that it may be seen as a future remedy for other situations and other circumstances. I think that Australia is strong enough and wealthy enough at this time, and ought to be generous enough, to give 4,000 permanent positions to those people in Kosovo who need them.Let us get things into some sort of perspective. The minister's second reading speech delivered in this place on the 21st of this month mentioned half a million refugees—500,000 people. Now the figure is up to something like three-quarters of a million people. If our proposals go through and we are providing some relief to some people, we will reduce that total of three-quarters of a million people to 746,000. I wonder if we could not do better in the circumstances. I wonder if Cabinet could not have done better when it made its decision on 6 April to allow 4,000 refugees to come to Australia and be granted temporary safe haven. I wonder if the earlier publicised position of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on this issue might not have been the best way to continue—that is, rather than expend resources to provide relief for 4,000 people that those resources be given directly to the UNHCR and that safe haven be provided in a country somewhat closer to Kosovo. I wonder whether that would be a better situation and circumstance—perhaps it would; I do not know. But I do praise the minister, the government and the Prime Minister for at least doing what they are.I have one other point that I want to make mention of, and I reiterate that there were many others that I wished to address that caused me grave concern in relation to the government's announcement. I quote directly from the minister's second reading speech. He said: In Australia, defence establishments have been prepared to receive displaced persons and a range of Federal and State agencies . . .That caused me grave concern because I had visited a defence establishment which was looking after people who were claiming refugee status when the then government used the Curtin air base in Derby as a holding place for people who were claiming or purporting to claim refugee status. It may have been appropriate in those circumstances but certainly I do not think an establishment such as Curtin in Derby would be appropriate in the circumstances for Kosovan refugees. I do not claim to be an expert on Europe, but I have seen the TV reports—as everyone else has—and they are coming from an extremely cold climate. It is their springtime but there is a lot of snow, frost and ice around and Curtin in Western Australia may not be the appropriate place for them.A military establishment might not be an appropriate place for persons who are traumatised in the way that these people have been. Bearing in mind that we are talking about only 4,000 people, it might be better if they were placed in a more integrated part of society. I am sure there are those in our community, including the church groups, who could handle that number of 4,000. Unfortunately I must conclude my remarks at this time in order that the second reading vote can be taken.13:56:004563Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I want to make some remarks about the Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 but in view of the time I will make my remarks in the committee stage, briefly. I defer to the parliamentary secretary to sum up and to have the second reading vote.13:56:004563Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Thank you. I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. I realise that, as Senator Cooney said, it is difficult when there is a short time frame, but I think all honourable senators are aware of the importance of getting this bill through so that, if the UNHCR indicates that it believes it is appropriate for us to take refugees under this Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 , we are ready to do so. I believe that, with the goodwill that has been expressed to me by honourable senators in this chamber, that is what we want to do.I will not go into the detail of the bill. I believe that all of us are profoundly affected by the crisis in Kosovo and by the conditions that the refugees are in. I just want to say that, from the letters the minister has received and the ones to which I have responded, large numbers of people have offered support—from offers of accommodation in their homes to offers of practical support in terms of goods and services. If and when the refugees come we may be able to use those offers, but we may not be able to use them all. I think it shows the enormous goodwill that exists in this community towards people who are much less fortunate than we are and that it gives a great hope and pride in our fellow citizens. I think that is something that has come out of this terrible tragedy. I thank honourable senators, and I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Sitting suspended from 1.58 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice456345634563Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. It appears she is not here. I don't know whether there is a change in ministerial arrangements. I am happy to take advice. I seek your direction, Madam President.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I will answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You could direct it to the Leader of the Government.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—It is a serious question and requires a serious answer. I would prefer to ask it of Senator Newman, with all due respect to Senator Hill.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I might give another senator the opportunity to ask a question. I call Senator Carr.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—That might be a better alternative, Madam President.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Senator Newman has arrived. Madam President, I would prefer it if Senator Evans were to ask his question of the minister, who should be here on time.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I take a point of order. Surely it is the height of discourtesy for Senator Evans to deliberately commence asking the question when he well knew that Senator Newman was some distance away from her seat. The very least he ought to be able do is to wait until she is ready or else defer to Senator Carr.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a further point of order: you would agree with me, no doubt, Madam President, in this point of order that it is the height of discourtesy for a minister to arrive two minutes late for the commencement of question time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think it is time we commenced question time. It is two minutes late.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—Madam President, I just want an answer to my question. Can the minister confirm that on signing the Commonwealth-state disability agreement last year the Howard government gave a commitment to the states and territories that the critical issue of unmet need would be specifically addressed at a specially convened meeting within 12 months? Can the Minister further confirm that when she finally convened the 9 April ministers' meeting the Commonwealth failed to make any offer to the states or territories or provide any leadership in meeting the huge unmet demand for services for people with disabilities? Is the minister aware that all state ministers have condemned her failure to offer any leadership and that WA Premier Richard Court has described the meeting as `a fiasco' and the Commonwealth's response as being `as bad as Commonwealth-state meetings get'?4564Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I must have guessed that Senator Evans wanted to ask me a question; I was running all the way to the chamber to hear it. I am sorry if I didn't run fast enough.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Evans clearly wants to hear the answer to this question and his colleagues should allow him to do so.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I hope he does, Madam President. I did, I think from memory, address most of the issues that were in his question a week or two ago. I would direct him to the communique which was released by the federal, state and territory ministers after the ministerial council.Senator Evans is right in saying that when the agreement was signed last year—I think from memory the last state signed in June last year—it was agreed that in the first 12 months of this agreement the Commonwealth minister `will convene a conference of ministers to specifically address this issue'. That is precisely what I did. So it was well within the 12 months. The second line in that agreement was that `ministers may subsequently agree on the contribution of additional funds for this purpose'.I think in his question Senator Evans said that I made no offer. In fact, I told the states that the Commonwealth was prepared to put more money in to help meet unmet need. I asked them would they give that commitment. They said they were not prepared to give that commitment at this stage; they wanted to see the amount that the Commonwealth was prepared to put in. The wording of the agreement that Senator Evans referred to in his question that ministers may subsequently agree on the contribution of additional funds for this purpose will be met.During the course of this year there will be another meeting of disability ministers at which I hope and trust we will all have figures that we can negotiate between us. At the meeting referred to there was a general acceptance—it was endorsed in the communique—that there was a considerable degree of unmet need. We believe that the report that was given to us by the Institute of Health and Welfare that said it was something in the order of $300 million was probably about right to the best of anybody's knowledge and that that would be the sum that we would be working towards, together in partnership, to achieve better outcomes for people with disabilities.4565Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I accept that the minister has a very different view of the meeting than all the state ministers who were present. Can the minister explain why the meeting on 9 April did nothing more than endorse the unmet need identified in a report published in 1997? Why should people with disabilities regard this as progress? Can the minister explain to the thousands of needy Australians how long they will have to wait before she takes any positive action on their behalf?4565Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think I just answered all that. I don't think there is anything else to add.45654565Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, one of the many advantages of the government's tax reform package is that it will make cars significantly cheaper. What are the benefits of cheaper cars for Australian families, for the car industry and for the environment? How else is the government helping to strengthen the Australian car industry?4565Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Gibson for his question. Senator Gibson is absolutely right. One of the critical advantages of our tax reform package is that it will cut the price of new cars. Under the current tax system, which Labor is insisting that we keep, there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on motor vehicles. We are going to get rid of that. We are going to put in a 10 per cent GST, which is effectively a 40 per cent cut in the sales tax on cars.So the average price of a car is going to fall by about $2,500, which will be of tremendous benefit for ordinary Australian families, who Labor do not care about. They will, of course, have $13 billion of tax cuts in their pockets as well, so a lot more ordinary Australian families will be able to buy newer cars, which will be of considerable benefit to the whole community. One thing that is often forgotten is that newer cars mean safer transport. Fatality rates in older cars are twice those in newer cars, so cheaper cars actually mean saving lives.For the car industry, the increase in demand for cars will strengthen the Australian car industry, and this is an industry that employs 55,000 Australians. The Greens talk about the tax package and the environment; cheaper cars are also very good for the environment. Australia has, as many of us know, one of the oldest car fleets in the world. The average age is nearly 11 years. We have got too many cars running on leaded fuel.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise from the opposition benches, and I would ask senators to keep in mind the standing orders of the Senate.JX4Senator MINCHIN—The opposition do not want Australians to hear the good news about this tax package. It will produce improvements for our environment. We have got too many cars running on leaded fuel, we have got too many cars pumping out excessive emissions, we have got too many cars with components that are not recyclable. Newer cars are much more fuel efficient than old ones. A new Commodore is about 15 per cent more fuel efficient than the 1988 model. So tax cuts are good for car buyers, they are good for the car industry, they are good for the environment and they will save Australian lives.This is not the only thing we are doing for the car industry. We will soon be introducing legislation for the Competitiveness in Investment Scheme, which is a $2 billion support scheme for the car industry. We have put $4½ million into the Access Australia concept car. That has been shown in 11 countries around the world, and already two Australian component manufacturers have won over $500 million in overseas supply contracts for airconditioning and instrument clusters as a result of the work on the concept car.What is the approach of those opposite? The opposition went to the last election with just two policies on the car industry. The first was to keep the current 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. This is the mob that is guilty of the most cynical manipulation of the wholesale sales tax system for blatant political purposes that we have ever seen. The wholesale sales tax on cars in 1992 was 20 per cent. When we announced our 15 per cent GST on cars, what did the Keating government do? It immediately dropped the wholesale sales tax to 15 per cent to match the GST promise and then, as soon as it lied its way back into office in 1993, it put the tax on cars back up; not just to 20 per cent but back up to 22 per cent—a 50 per cent increase in the rate of tax. There was no compensation, no lock-in, no nothing. It was one of the most dreadful, cynical manipulations of sales tax we have ever seen.The other promise they took to the election was to triple the import duty on four-wheel drives, which would have made a Land Cruiser, which many Australians have to drive in the bush, $10,000 more expensive under Labor's policies than under ours. The Australian people said no to Labor's approach and they re-elected us. They re-elected us because we do stand for a strong Australian car industry, an environmentally responsible, safer car fleet and more affordable cars for Australian families.45664566Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, when the Prime Minister spoke of finetuning the GST package, was he referring to changes to provide benefits for highroller clients of Crown Casino? When he spoke of the importance of mateship, was he referring to special deals with wealthy mates to prevent the GST eating into their gambling profits? Can the minister explain why the government is giving multimillion dollar benefits to casinos for their high rollers while offering pensioners a compensation package that will erode to zero in a matter of years?4566Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Carr, virtually every aspect of that question was wrong—as it often is with you. I think you are more interested in making a political statement and political assertions than in providing facts to the Senate. The amendment which we have offered, Senator Carr should be aware, is not a change in policy. It is not a concession to high rollers.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! This is an opposition question and Senator Carr is entitled to hear the answer free from the loud interjections of his colleagues.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. The basic point is that the GST is a value added tax. The value added to the gambling operator is their margin, and the margin is the bets placed minus any payouts that must be made to the gambler. No gambler directly pays the GST. If rebates were not considered as monetary prizes, then the gambling operator's margin would be overstated. The government's intention was always to tax the correct value added, which is the gambler's true margin or, alternatively, the player's true loss.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They are rebates on losses.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you are persistently interjecting, and that is in breach of the standing orders if I conclude that that is deliberate.WW4Senator KEMP—Not allowing rebates to be deducted from the gambling margin would be similar to not allowing a business which sells a good with a discount to deduct the amount of the discount from the undiscounted price for GST purposes.The amendment does not change revenue compared with the forward estimates; in other words, we are giving effect with this amendment to the policy intention. I am able to report to the parliament I have received backing for this position from a surprising source—Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy was let loose in the debate on this issue prior to question time. Senator Conroy asked me some questions about the revenue, and I indicated to Senator Conroy there was no change in the forward revenue estimates.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—That is not the question you were asked.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy!WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, you have spoken to Senator Conroy a couple of times about the interjections, and he continues to flout your ruling. As I was saying, I received support from a surprising source, Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy agreed with me that there was no change in the forward revenue estimates.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You weren't asked that question.WW4Senator KEMP—It therefore follows that these changes are giving effect to the government's policy intent as announced at the last election. So I am grateful for the support that I received from Senator Conroy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You are deliberately misleading the parliament.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, your behaviour is disorderly.WW4Senator KEMP—As I was saying, Madam President, despite the relentless attacks that Senator Conroy is attempting to make on me, undoubtedly he is very embarrassed by the concession that he made in the preliminary debate. When Senator Conroy agreed with me that there was no change in the forward estimates, it logically follows from that that the amendment was giving effect to the policy intent which the government announced at the last election.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many opposition senators interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—This morning they rolled out not the top guns but the pop guns, with Senator Carr coming into the attack. My advice to the Labor Party is that it is probably better to have Kim Carr asking—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I think you should stick to the question that has been asked. In fact, the time has expired for answering it.4567Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The three points to the question I asked were that the Prime Minister's finetuning of the GST package in fact meant benefits for high rollers; that wealthy mates were what he meant by mateship; and that the compensation package provided by this government has been inadequate. Minister, this morning you compared this measure to pensioners involved in bingo and raffles. Are you serious, Minister? Are you aware that the average stake a high roller—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Could you ask Senator Carr to direct his questions to you rather than direct to the minister?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question should be directed to the chair. I would point out that this is precisely a question relating to the debate on the Notice Paper that is before the chamber at the present time. In the last couple of weeks we have allowed questions on the topic of the tax package, but I had ruled out previously a question which was fairly precisely within the debate. This seems to me to be very precisely within a debate that was adjourned at lunchtime. You should be very cautious as to how you word it, Senator.AW5Senator CARR—Thank you very much, Madam President. I would ask the minister: are you serious in comparing highroller gambling with pensioners involved in bingo and raffles? Are you aware that the average stake for a high roller—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I raise a point of order.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is disorderly.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, my colleague Senator Macdonald reminded Senator Carr, through you, about the way that questions ought be formulated. You then immediately reminded Senator Carr of that. You in fact upheld Senator Macdonald's point of order. We find Senator Carr, oblivious to all that, continuing with his prewritten ques tion, unable to formulate it in a way which is acceptable to this chamber. If he is unable to do that, Madam President, I would request you to sit him down.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, on the point of order: can I suggest that if Senator Carr is unable to abide by your point of order because of his low comprehension skills, he attend a course at Greenwich University.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not a point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, on the point of order: I can see why the Liberal Party want to cover up this issue. But the question raised by Senator Carr was referred to by Senator Kemp on the AM program this morning, outside of the debate in this chamber.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in question time today must leave people who are listening and watching absolutely wondering about senators' ability to understand the standing orders. Senator Carr, your question should be addressed to the chair, and it should not deal with the debate that is actually on the bill and before the chamber at the present time. It should be worded appropriately.AW5Senator CARR—Thank you, Madam President. I would ask: is the minister aware that the average stake for a high roller is $500,000 to $5 million? Minister, what is the average stake of a bingo player?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Are you going to allow Senator Carr to continually flout the rulings? My respectful request to you, Madam President, is that if he is unable to ask his question in accordance with standing orders, the question ought be ruled out of order. He has been given three opportunities. I think it is three strikes and you are out.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have spoken to Senator Carr, and I will monitor what occurs. I think it is time we moved on with question time. I will look at the Hansard later. The last question I think was half and half.4568Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think you were extremely kind to Senator Carr, Madam President. He had three goes at it and got it wrong each time. Indeed, the basic assumption behind what he said is wrong. Senator Carr, the amendment is not a concession for high rollers.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Senator Kemp is now directly addressing Senator Carr. I hope you would note in the answer to the primary question that Senator Carr asked that not only did he address Senator Carr, he also directly addressed Senator Conroy. All I ask is that if you are to uphold the standing orders, as you are obliged to do, it is done in a way that ensures senators on both sides of the chamber address their remarks through you. As far as Senator Kemp is concerned, he is also required to address all his remarks through the President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is correct. Senators on both sides frequently forget how to address their questions and their answers. If I drew this to the attention of senators every time such a breach occurred, we would never get past about three questions in question time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is the absurdity of the points of order being taken by the government.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—And I do it intermittently in respect of both sides in the hope that senators will abide by the standing orders in the way they both ask questions and answer them. Senator Kemp did address his remarks directly to Senator Carr, and I remind him also that the remarks should be directed to the chair. Senator Kemp, if you do not have anything further to add, I will call Senator Knowles.45684568Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. The government's tax reform package provides very fair and generous compensation for low income earners and pensioners. The minister would be aware of some of the alternative proposals that have been put forward of late by various groups. Could the minister please inform the Senate of what impact those various proposals would have on the $13 billion of personal income taxes to taxpayers and families?4569Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, that is a very important question. It is worth reiterating that a key part of the tax reform package currently before the Australian parliament will involve a $13 billion reduction in personal income tax—perhaps the largest reduction in personal income taxes in the history of this country—and offered in a way that it can be demonstrated it will be delivered, in contrast with the Labor government's previous record.What would $13 billion handed back to the Australian people mean? It means greater incentive, more money in the pocket, a greater opportunity for Australians to take their own destiny in hand and plan for their future. This is what the ALP is wishing to refuse the Australian people: $13 billion of income tax reductions. That is worth repeating: $13 billion of income tax reductions.That is not the only benefit that would flow from the restructuring of tax proposed by the coalition government. Exports would particularly benefit. What would flow from that? Greater production, the capacity for Australian businesses to grow and to employ, to continue the downward trend of unemployment, part of the legacy of this Howard government of which we are very proud. There would be benefits for the states as well. Not only will they be rid of a whole range of state taxes but they will have greater security for the future to provide for the responsibilities that they have, such as housing, health care, education and the like.AW5CARRSenator Carr—And high rollers. Tell us about the high rollers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, cease shouting.BH4Senator HILL—It is a rounded package of great benefit to all Australians. This is what the Labor Party is refusing the Australian people.What are the alternatives, Madam President? You have the ALP. The ALP on the one hand say, `No change.' Their position is one of no change. They are the party who in government increased wholesale sales taxes by two per cent. They imposed new petrol taxes. You will remember, Senator Bolkus, that they increased them on leaded petrol, which particularly affected the battlers. They increased the excise on tobacco. All of these increases were at a time when they had promised the Australian people they would reduce tax.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What are you doing for the high rollers? What are you doing for Kerry Packer out of this? Who is the big winner?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—Of course they would not reduce tax, because they were the government of high expenditure, high taxation and high borrowings—a $10 billion deficit passed to the incoming government. So that can be no answer. Even Mr Hogg, the architect of their 1993 election, said, `That's no answer; it's time to move on and restructure the tax package.' Even the state Labor premiers say that it is time to move on and restructure the tax package. It is only this blind federal Labor Party, stuck in the old ways, that is not prepared to reform.The third alternative is the Australian Democrats' Irish model—the Irish model, full of all the failings of confusion and extra expenditure. Bread would be out, but not herb bread, not wholemeal bread, not garlic bread, not waffles. It would be impossible to interpret. So there are three alternatives: a comprehensive reform program with great benefits, obvious benefits, to the Australian people; a confused muddle being proposed by the Australian Democrats; or no change at all, more of the disastrous legacy that Labor gave us over 13 years in government.On that basis, there can be no alternative. Labor should embrace the advice given to it by its own state premiers and say it is time—it is time now to finally acknowledge its failure, come on board and be part of a great new reform that can give the Australian people greater hope for the future.45704570Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of the Treasurer's statement in parliament on 8 March this year where, in relation to a case put by the insurance industry for beneficial treatment under the GST, he said:The treatment in relation to the Insurance Council is consistent with the treatment of other industries. It is an argument by the Insurance Council to be given more beneficial treatment. If you are to adopt it, you could perhaps explain why you think other parts of the Australian economy, such as pensioners, health or hospitals should be worse treated.Now that it is evident that Crown Casino will get more beneficial treatment than other industries, can the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate and the Australian people exactly which pensions, health or hospital services will be `worse treated' because of this multimillion dollar favouritism for a Liberal Party mate?4570Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Conroy for the question. This gives me a chance—through you, Madam President—to thank the senator for the comments he made this morning which confirmed the remarks that I made that, in relation to casinos, this was no policy change. The amendment gives effect to the policy which the government announced at the last election.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections.WW4Senator KEMP—As I have said, Madam President, Senator Conroy asking me this question gives me a chance to express my appreciation to him for that concession he made. The question is wrong for the reasons that Senator Conroy made clear this morning. We are not giving a concession to high rollers. We are giving effect to the policy with which we went—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No-one believes you.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy says that no-one believes me, yet Senator Conroy believed me this morning.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why did you get it wrong in the first place?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. It is indeed hard to answer questions when you are subjected to constant abuse from the Labor Party. If they want to have their questions answered, I think we are entitled to believe that they would listen in silence to any answers which happen to be given. As I understood your question, Senator Conroy, the basic premise on which it was asked is—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your remarks should be addressed to the chair, Senator.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. The basic premise on which Senator Conroy's question is asked is wrong because he has referred to a concession. As I have said, we have given effect to the policy which we announced at the last election. It was clear from the wording of the legislation that was brought into the parliament that the legislation did not give effect properly to that policy. What we have done in relation to casinos is—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Opposition senators will cease interjecting!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. In relation to casinos, we have given effect to the policy which was announced at the last election, Senator Conroy.4570Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Minister, who initially sought these—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—No.3L6Senator CONROY—Through you, Madam President: Minister, who initially sought these GST concessions for Crown Casino, whom was the approach made to and when was the approach made?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. It is truly appalling that, after being in this chamber for a number of years, Senator Conroy still seems to have not the vaguest idea of how to address questions. Given that he is not on probation, you should treat him as an adult for these purposes and not allow him to proceed further until he addresses you properly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question should be addressed to the chair, Senator.3L6Senator CONROY—Shall I start again? Will my time start again?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—No.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No, we have heard it.3L6Senator CONROY—Who initially sought the GST concessions for Crown Casino, whom was the approach made to and when was the approach made? When did Mr Ron Walker, the federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, lobby the Howard government seeking GST `highroller' concessions for Crown Casino either formally or informally and when will you fess up to how much money you are giving to casinos?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—When you re-read the question, Senator, I think you will understand the extent to which it has not been directed correctly.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: if you intend to draw Senator Conroy's attention to that matter, I hope you intend to draw Senator Kemp's attention to the fact that he transgressed.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have—I did in his last answer.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He is a serial offender and he demonstrated again that he is a serial offender in the last answer to the primary question asked by Senator Conroy. He breached the standing orders on a number of occasions. His attention was not drawn to it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—His attention was drawn to it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is one rule for the government and one rule for the opposition.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you should be wary of that sort of accusation. I did draw Senator Kemp's attention to that fact in his last answer.4571Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It was in fact hard to hear part of that question because Senator Robert Ray was bellowing like a bull while the question was being asked. It is very hard to hear the questions when Senator Ray behaves in that unseemly fashion.Again, like Senator Carr's question, the underlying assumptions in the question, as I heard them, were all wrong, as usual. What happened, Senator, is the industry body for the casino industry approached the Treasury and pointed out that the legislation, among other things, did not give full effect to the government's policy which had been announced. On that basis, the Treasury proposed to the government that the legislation be amended, and that is the amendment which I have put before this parliament. That is the basis of it, Senator. (Time expired)45714571Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the government aware of reports received through the Catholic Church that there was a meeting of Indonesian military and militia leaders in Dili last Friday night which agreed on a strategy to kill or neutralise both bishops in East Timor as well as priests, nuns and other church workers in an effort to undermine the Catholic Church's ability to provide sanctuary? Is the government aware that the militias began applying their anti-church strategy on Sunday near Komoro by stopping people leaving a mass and killing those they regarded as suspicious? What is this government doing to ensure that militias are immediately disarmed, that these violent tactics of intimidation cease and that the Indonesian military withdrawn from East Timor?4571Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know no more than the press reports, which are consistent with what Senator Bourne said, and those reports include statements by Bishop Belo that he is concerned that the mood in fact is too violent at present for a fair vote on autonomy and about the danger that flows from the continuing behaviour of the armed militias. Senator Bourne asks what we are doing to resolve that problem. Of course, as I said yesterday, the primary responsibility, which is accepted by the Indonesian government, is that they must provide an environment that is free and stable within which the autonomy ballot is to take place. It is difficult to see that occurring while the militia remain armed and behave as they are today. Thus we have said, and I say it again, that Indonesia must make every effort to disarm the militia groups and do so as quickly as possible.We have some hope in that the autonomy agreement, as signed in New York at the end of last week, which I understand includes details of security arrangements, does provide for a role for the Peace and Stability Commission in ensuring the laying down of arms and disarmament efforts and for Indonesia being responsible and accountable to the international community for that occurring. I also refer to the statement made by Foreign Minister Alatas after that agreement was reached in New York when he said that priority must be placed on the rapid disarmament of both sides.I think everyone knows the problem and they know the solution, but the primary responsibility for delivering on that outcome lies with the Indonesian government. They have indicated that they will be taking such actions as necessary to provide an environment in which a fair autonomy vote can take place, and it is that undertaking that they will be held to account for.4572Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I thank the minister for that answer. He mentioned press reports, and he would be aware that those press reports included possible plans for another massacre in Dili this weekend, that things are getting worse—they are not getting better—and that there must be an immediate laying down of arms. Could he tell us when the laying down of arms is intended to commence and what the Australian government understands will occur before that happens to stop any further massacres, to stop the murder of bishops, nuns and priests, of so many people in East Timor? Could he also tell us whether the Australian government is making continual representations—every time something comes out—to the Indonesian government on this?4572Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think the trip by the Prime Minister to Bali was an indication of how seriously we regard the whole issue and of our preparedness to support Indonesia in its efforts to ensure that there is a free and fair autonomy vote. That is the outcome to which Australia is working. As you know, we have indicated that we will support in due course the police contingent. You know as well I do all of the other initiatives that were announced last week, including the reopening of the consulate, greater access to International Red Cross and so forth.So we, together with other parties, are doing all that is possible to support the Indonesian government to reduce and hopefully avoid the unacceptable level of violence that is occurring. We are all appalled by the violence that is occurring. We would all wish that it was not occurring but, to be realistic, there is only so much we can do to ensure a better outcome. I cannot reasonably see that there is anything else we can do. (Time expired)45724572Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware that a major accounting firm, Ernst and Young, has claimed that the government's proposed pricing guidelines for the ACCC to prevent GST price exploitation do not contain the power to prosecute, and that the proposed enforcement of companies which jump the gun with price increases may be lacking adequate legislative backup? In light of this, can the minister confirm whether businesses can raise their prices in anticipation of the GST, thereby engaging in price exploitation any time up until 30 June this year and not—I repeat, not—be subject to the ACCC's price control measures?4572Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, we would expect that most businesses—in fact, we would hope all businesses—would abide by the appropriate guidelines in relation to the transitional phase of the GST. We would expect that, when the GST comes into effect, we would not see any attempts at price exploitation. As a result, we have given special powers to the ACCC to monitor the transitional phase. Senator Cook, if you are aware of anyone attempting to raise prices unfairly claiming that it is a result of the GST, I suggest you make those cases known to the government or you report them directly to the ACCC.4573Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I point out to the minister that some industry sectors have already told the inquiry that they have increased their prices. Could the minister confirm that there are two categories of price control measures: one which applies to ordinary businesses and a second category which applies to goods including `slot machines for gambling and amusement'. Minister, why are there two categories for price control?4573Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—To counter the possibility, as I said, of excessive profiteering under the GST, on 10 December 1998 legislation was introduced into the other place to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission special transitional powers to monitor prices. The transitional price oversight regime will begin 12 months prior to the implementation of the GST and will continue for a further two years from the date. As I said, if people feel that cases are occurring, they are quite entitled to report those to the government.45734573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Australian Defence Force's welcome two-year contract with Incat Tasmania worth $38 million for the supply of a high-speed catamaran to the armed forces. Can the minister tell the Senate what the nature of that contract is—sale, lease or otherwise—and whether Tasmanian duties, such as stamp duties, will be paid on that sale or, if not, whether some arrangement will be made to compensate Tasmania for taxes forgone in this very welcome sale by Incat?4573Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not know that I can take Senator Brown as far as he would like to go, because I think he is labouring under a misapprehension here. As I said yesterday, the Department of Defence has commenced negotiations with International Catamarans in Hobart to charter a catamaran for a two-year period. This is a lease, a charter. It was awarded to International Catamarans as it was the only builder with a vessel of this type available within our required time frame. As I said, it is being leased; it is not being purchased.I am advised that the financial details of the transaction are still being finalised. It is Defence's practice to abide by all Commonwealth legal and financial obligations in transactions of this type. As you have not been specific about what is behind your question, I can say no more than that.4573Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I have been specific. I thank the minister for telling us that it is a charter. I am aware that the sale price of a catamaran is in the order of $38 million. Can the minister tell the Senate whether the Hobart Mercury headline saying that this is a $38 million contract for two years is correct? If so, what does the $38 million go towards, beside the use of a catamaran of about that value for two years?4573Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am very happy to get more detail from the Minister for Defence. But I warn Senator Brown: he has been in political life long enough to know that you would have to challenge or, at the very least, question some of the headlines or the stories you might read in the Hobart Mercury . Some of my dearest friends work for the Hobart Mercury . Nevertheless, I would not depend on them for the exactitude of facts. I am very happy to follow up the details. But I have told the Senate that it is a lease; it is not being purchased; and as to further financial arrangements, they are still being negotiated. To the extent that there is further information, I will be very happy to bring it to Senator Brown.45734573Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister explain the Prime Minister's rationalisation in his letter to the Australian yesterday, in which he said:At a minimum, even if all States remove non-residential conveyance duty as soon as they can afford it, Treasury estimates their cumulative gain over the decade to be around $17 billion.Given that Treasury has been able to arrive at a specific estimate of $17 billion, what assumptions have they made about how long the states will maintain non-residential conveyance duty—one of the taxes that the states are supposed to be abolishing as part of the GST package? Will this tax be maintained for one, two, three or 10 years?4574Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am very grateful to Senator George Campbell for that question because the Prime Minister did write an important letter to the Australian , which was published, which gives the lie, I think, to some of the comments your colleagues have made in recent days over this issue. It is an important letter. I again thank Senator Campbell for asking me this question. Let me read to the Senate some important aspects which deal with the issues that Senator Campbell raised. The Prime Minister said, among other things:The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth State Financial Relations—signed by all State and Territory leaders—specified removal dates for a range of taxes and stamp duties, except stamp duties on non-residential conveyances of real property.In relation to stamp duties on non-residential conveyances, the agreement stipulated that while all States agreed to its removal—you understand that, that `all states agreed to its removal'—the tax will cease to apply from a date to be determined.—by the Ministerial Council. So I am aware of the Prime Minister's letter, and those are the two important paragraphs. He went on to say—and this deals with the nub of your question:At a minimum, even if all States remove non-residential conveyance duty as soon as they can afford it, Treasury estimates their cumulative gain over the decade to be around $17 billion. To the extent that the States remove these stamp duties at a later date, the size of the gains will be higher.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—At a later date than 10 years?WW4Senator KEMP—I will repeat it, if you missed that point, Senator:To the extent that the States remove these stamp duties at a later date, the size of the gains will be higher.The letter goes on:The principal advantage of the Government's tax reform plan is that it provides the States and Territories with access to a secure and growing source of revenue—revenue to be spent on schools, hospitals and police services. This is acknowledged by State and Territory leaders—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Are you going to answer the question at all?WW4Senator KEMP—That is exactly the question that was asked.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not the question. You read the letter. He asked you a question about the letter.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Again, it is a bit hard. You try to respond in detail to questions—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the letter. The questioner had actually read the letter. Senator Kemp is now reading the letter. The prospect of his ever coming to answer the question appears absolutely remote. Will you direct him to answer the question that was actually put to him and not just fill up question time by needlessly reading information we know about and in fact have based a question on in the case of Senator Campbell?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Campbell would not have had to ask the question if he had read the letter carefully. He did not read the letter carefully. What he did was take a question written out by Senator Cook and then he read it blindly into the Senate record. I am answering the question that was asked. It would have been better and would have saved the Senate's time if Senator Campbell had bothered to read the letter rather than read the question that Senator Cook gave to him. The letter continues:All of the revenue from the GST goes to the States and Territories and the gains to them grow over time. Treasury projections based on estimates agreed at the time of the premiers conference indicate that cumulative gains to the States and Territories through to the end of the next decade once all stamp duties have been removed will range from $17 billion to $26 billion.The exact amount by which the States will benefit will depend on the growth in the economy and the precise timing of the removal of stamp duties. I thank Senator Campbell for the question. I thank him for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the wider public the important letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Australian . I think that deals precisely with the question that Senator Campbell asked me. (Time expired)4575Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister, through you, Madam President: was the Prime Minister just plain wrong when he told Neil Mitchell last week that the states would not get the GST unless they abolished a non-residential conveyance duty, along with the other nine state taxes?4575Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again, it is a great pity. I read a response to Senator Campbell, he does not bother to listen, and then he gets up and asks a question which was dealt with. The issue that you are concerned with has been dealt with by the Prime Minister's letter. All I can do is urge you to read it, Senator Campbell. Why don't you read the Prime Minister's letter instead of wasting the Senate's time?45754575Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Vanstone. The Howard government has taken the lead in addressing the national tragedy of domestic violence. Would the minister please inform the Senate about the new report on Model domestic violence laws ?4575Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question. She has had a longstanding interest in these issues for many years prior to coming into parliament, which she has maintained in parliament. Domestic violence is one of the most important issues facing our community. It causes havoc in the lives of many Australians and costs the Australian community in a very human way and therefore is a very high priority for the Howard government. Yesterday I released a report which recommends quite sweeping changes to laws relating to domestic violence. The report was prepared by a working party of Commonwealth, state and territory officials under the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Project. The report, entitled Model domestic violence laws , is a very important step towards improved and consistent laws in this area.A key recommendation of the report is that the law should provide for immediate registration and portability of domestic violence orders around Australia. The Commonwealth will assist with this by establishing a new national police information system through a $50 million initiative entitled Crimtrack. Without an effective and truly national police information system, we simply cannot give the victims of domestic violence immediate protection no matter where they travel in Australia. Additionally, developing consistent grounds for obtaining orders is also a key recommendation of the report. The report proposes that an order may be made where a person reasonably fears that an act of domestic violence will be committed or where a person has committed an act of domestic violence against another and is likely to do so again unless restrained.Currently, the grounds vary from state to state. In some states the basis for obtaining an order is reasonable fear that domestic violence will be committed; in other states the test is based on an actual act of domestic violence. Again, there are recommendations for improved emergency procedures. The report recommends that police officers in all states and territories should be able to apply for telephone orders in situations where urgent protection is required outside working hours. The report recommends that police officers in all states and territories should be able to temporarily restrain potentially violent offenders at the scene of domestic violence incidents without the need for an arrest. We think that this is vital in helping to prevent violence against women and children, but it is not yet available in all states and territories.Children require more protection. The proposed laws recognise that children are often caught up in not only the process of domestic violence but also the associated court procedures. Special measures are proposed for the protection of the privacy of children. The model laws allow for the clos ure of a court where a domestic violence proceeding involves a child.This is a final report on the basis of a discussion paper that was released in 1997 by the Prime Minister. There has been a round of consultations and now we have the final report. Obviously there will be further comments on this report and they will of course be made available to all ministers concerned. The report complements other initiatives under the federal government's $100 million Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Project such as rural and remote domestic violence initiatives, the relationship support service for men and the domestic violence community education package for young people.Next month I will host a national forum focusing on the perpetrators of domestic violence. The Senate can be assured that the federal government is committed to preventing domestic violence and ensuring that perpetrators of domestic violence understand that their actions will simply not be tolerated.45764576Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, why did you order ATSIC to remove a report on the impact of the GST on Aboriginal communities from the Internet?4576Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, through you: I didn't.4576Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question therefore to the minister is: on 18 March Ms Crawshaw in the Senate select committee said:At that stage, we had it on the Internet and we were ordered by our minister, Senator Herron, to have it removed.Is Ms Crawshaw telling the truth or are you telling a lie?4576Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, to answer that part of the question, I don't lie. But I will check with what—Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—No, I will check. I have no knowledge of this matter. If I can tell the Senate any more on the matter, I would be happy to bring it to the Senate. I welcome Senator Schacht back. Madam President, I get unintelligible psychobabble from that side routinely. It is very difficult in the circumstances and I sympathise with you, Madam President. These charges of lying, Madam President, are not acceptable, as you know, in this chamber. I certainly resent the implication in that question. I would seek your advice as to whether that question was within the standing orders.45764576Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I presume the minister is aware that the Business Council is hosting a seminar today on the importance of reducing poverty traps if we want to reduce unemployment. I ask: does the minister support the need to remove more poverty traps? Does the minister agree with evidence from economists Chris Murphy, Geoff Carmody and Michael Keating to the Senate tax inquiry that reducing poverty traps is one of the main devices by which the tax package will generate jobs?4576Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Poverty traps are always a problem area. Quite clearly, it is important to ensure that there are as few disincentives as possible built into the system of welfare or any other transfer payments. Clearly, the government believes that it is an important issue, but that in no shape or form reflects on the tax package that has been put before the Australian parliament. That is all about providing massive incentives for people to not only have a greater spending capacity but also be able to be taxed on their consumption. That is, I think, a very important aspect of poverty traps. You get the incentives in the right place, you encourage people to save, you give them significant taxation reductions and you put them in a much better net position. That is the overall intention of the package. It is clearly designed to ensure that lower income Australians in particular are much better off as a result.4577Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if you are concerned about property traps then why haven't you removed the biggest one of all, and that is the one faced by the unemployed? If they want to accept part-time work, they lose with that poverty trap 90 cents in every dollar that they earn. Are you aware of the criticism from Dr Keating, one of the five economists whose plan is being debated by the Business Council today, on this very point—that the government has failed to address the worst of the poverty traps? In your answer you talked about the massive incentives within the tax package; I presume you are talking about the $6.8 billion of tax cuts to high income earners. Why is it that you have managed to find the $6.8 billion for high income earners but not the $500 million that it will cost to remove this disincentive for those who are unemployed to accept part-time work?4577Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is my understanding that the effect of marginal tax rates for low income families will be reduced from something in the order of 80 per cent down to around 60 per cent, so that is a very significant move forward. There are unemployed people who are low income earners or who are members of low income families so it obviously makes a very significant difference to them if that is the case. I do not have the figures in front of me, but as I recall, depending on the deciles used, it is easy to demonstrate that overall this package is not one that favours high income earners.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Oh yeah? Ask the high rollers.LD4Senator ALSTON—Or high rollers, or the punch drunk. The tax package is designed to provide incentives at all levels and it does that. It certainly contains personal income taxes and family benefits which are a very significant part of the overall package and which will provide incentives for people and ensure that they are able to take up employment opportunities where they arise.45774577Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald. I ask why the minister made the claim in a letter which he had published in the Jimboomba Times in his own home state on 14 April that:A leading council organisation in its submission to the Senate inquiry indicated that between 90 and 95 per cent of services provided by councils would not attract a GST.Is the minister aware that the submission to which he referred from the Municipal Association of Victoria actually said that 90 to 95 per cent of local government income would be GST free, not services as the minister claimed? Is the minister aware that the MAV calculated that there would be `217 fees across a range of services, of which about 117 will have a GST applied to them'?4577Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Mackay for allowing me to emphasise again that by far the greatest impact on local government is that it will be GST free—no impact of the GST at all. The main things that local government deal with and send bills for—rates, water and sewerage, regulatory charges, fines—are entirely GST free. On the other side, of course, councils do very well out of the GST project. They get a share in the $70 million Australia wide that council costs are reduced by as a result of the GST. They will share in the huge savings from the reduction in excise on fuel. For example, my home state, Queensland councils alone will save $18 million from the removal of excise on the trucks and vehicles that they run. It is a great package for local government. What is more, local governments are going to be guaranteed a continuing payment towards their financial assistance. They will be paid in future by the states but guaranteed by the Commonwealth under the memorandum of understanding. That is a very significant agreement that has just been signed, one that will benefit all councils. For example, in Queensland—I again use my state because I am most familiar with it—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My question was related to a letter which the minister wrote to the Jimboomba Times in relation to misrepresenting the position of the MAV and I would like him to answer that question, not rave on about local government.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, I am sure you are aware of the question.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am, Madam President. I have already answered it, but I am actually using the opportunity to go on and explain the great benefits to local government from this package. In my own state of Queensland this package has enabled the Queensland government—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister has just misled the parliament by saying that he has answered the question. He has done nothing of the sort. He has not answered the question. He has not even attempted to answer the question. Earlier today I raised a point of order on this very subject of relevance. You allowed Senator Kemp to go on. Senator Kemp went on and completed his answer without directing his attention at all to the question asked of him. We now have another serial offender in Senator Macdonald doing exactly the same. Madam President, you will obviously in your considered way allow him latitude to get around to answering the question, but can I ask you to actually insist that he does so before he sits down, otherwise he is just a farce and a joke and ministers can stand up here and say anything they want as long as they avoid the question put to them and pretend they are putting in a performance of accountability to the Australian community.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On the point of order, is it proper for Senator Cook to use question time to essentially abuse people, to accuse them of misleading the parliament and not even use the term `relevance', which presumably is what he had in mind. In other words, it was a completely spurious point of order and I ask you whether that sort of behaviour should be tolerated in the future.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order and I cannot direct a minister as to how he answers a question, I must take note of whether he is dealing with the topic that has been raised and is relevant.4578Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The benefit to local government is of course very relevant to the question that was asked of me. All I can say of Senator Cook is that Senator Ray was right in what he said about him all those years ago. This is a great package for local government. In my own state of Queensland, as I have been attempting to point out to Senator Mackay—because she would benefit from this, particularly if she could get the Tasmanian government to do the same—the Queensland government has actually given a percentage of their GST revenue to local government in Queensland. That is a great initiative for local government in Queensland and, according to a report in the Courier-Mail , that is going to mean $35 million extra for local government in Queensland. Senator Mackay could well use her time by encouraging her state government of Tasmania—the Premier and the Treasurer from that state—to give the same deal to local authorities in her home state of Tasmania. It is a great package and, as Senator Mackay rightly points out, most of the activities of councils are GST free.4578Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you did not answer one part of that question. I asked the minister if the letter that he wrote to the Jimboomba Times , which I understand referred to the MAV submission, was incorrect. I further asked the minister does he understand that the MAV argued not that 95 per cent of their services would be GST free but in fact that over 50 per cent of the services for which they charge a nominal fee would be subject to a GST. You have therefore misrepresented the MAV. Secondly, why does the minister continue to deliberately mislead the Australian public and the Senate about local government and the GST? Will you, Minister, take the opportunity to publish a correction in the Jimboomba Times ?4578Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am not sure that I referred to the MAV in a letter. I will have to check the letter and see whether I did refer to the MAV.Opposition senators interjecting—YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Are you telling me that I did refer to the MAV? In fact, I think I am meeting with the Municipal Association of Victoria next week. If they claim that I have misrepresented them, no doubt they will raise that with me then. But I would have thought, if it was such a heinous misrepresentation—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much shouting going on in the chamber at the present time.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—If it was, perhaps the MAV might have contacted me, and I have had no contact from the MAV.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—On a point of order, Madam President: the MAV issue was in fact communicated by your office to us as the submission that you were referring to, Minister—so it was not the MAV, it was your office.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I suppose I can only conclude by again thanking Senator Mackay for allowing me to draw attention to the fact that, across the board, local government will do very well. Most of the things they do will face no impact from a GST. The only real impact to local government is that their costs will fall very substantially. It is a great package for local government. I just hope the Democrats will allow this package to get through to give local government this great boost. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous4579457915:11:004579Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—On 22 April, Senator Woodley asked a question of the Special Minister of State which was more properly addressed to me. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard a response by the Attorney-General.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Amanda Vanstone—on 22 April 1999 (Hansard Page 3586) Senator Woodley asked the following question of the Special Minister of State, Senator Ellison:Is it true that the Commonwealth government is pressuring the Queensland government to accept some 250 amendments to its native title state regime legislation? What is the nature of the amendments which are being proposed? Is it true that the effect of these amendments will be to wind back the rights of indigenous people which have been achieved by the Queensland government in their recently passed legislation? Is this an attempt by the Commonwealth government to ensure that the inadequacy of the Commonwealth's Native Title Amendment Act is repeated in Queensland?The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. The Commonwealth government is not pressuring the Queensland government to accept amendments to its native title state regime legislation.The Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) as amended by the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 allows State and Territory governments to introduce their own alternative regimes to operate instead of the NTA right to negotiate provisions. This is designed to allow States and Territories to integrate native title procedures into their own land management systems provided the Commonwealth is satisfied that the criteria set out in the NTA are met. The determinations necessary to allow the State or Territory provisions to apply instead of the NTA are disallowable instruments.A number of jurisdictions are working towards establishing such alternative native title procedures and some have introduced or passed relevant legislation. As would be expected following the recent comprehensive reform of the NTA, officials from my Department have had discussions with a number of jurisdictions in relation to the NTA criteria that must be met.Following extensive discussions with Queensland officials, I am advised that they are considering a number of amendments to their native title provisions. However, Queensland officials have informed my Department that these amendments do not represent a change in policy; they relate to workability, compliance and technical drafting issues only.457915:11:004579Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—On 28 April, Madam President, in my capacity representing the Minister for Immi gration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Margetts asked two questions of me and I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard answers provided by the minister.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—On 28 April in my capacity representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs I was asked by Senator Margetts the following questions:. "My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister tell me: given the deteriorating human rights situation in East Timor and given the government's current policy of not accepting people fleeing from East Timor as eligible for refugee status in Australia, what intention does the government have in relation to East Timorese people arriving at Australia's borders seeking refugee status in this country?". "Can the minister guarantee that east Timorese fleeing the territory will not automatically be detained or deported on arrival in Australia if they have inappropriate documentation? What plans does the Australian government have to facilitate the processing of visa applications in East Timor for those seeking protection in Australia, given the need for an expedited process? I realise that, similar to your first answer, a portion of that question at least will be on notice."AnswerThere is no blanket policy under which East Timorese are ineligible for refugee status in Australia. Each application for protection is considered on its own merits. Under the Migration Act any person who arrives in Australia without an appropriate authority to enter must be refused immigration clearance and must be removed as soon as practicable unless they have made an application for a visa.All unauthorised arrivals are carefully interviewed to ascertain the reasons for their travel to this country. Where they raise claims or give information which prima facie may engage Australia's protection obligations, they are not removed but are instead assisted to apply for protection in Australia.The Migration Act requires that all unauthorised arrivals must be held in detention pending the finalisation of any visa application and, if they are unsuccessful in their application, their removal. The Act provides mechanisms for release on a case by case basis where, for example, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has not made a decision on their visa application within 6 months, or in the case of children, people over 75 years of age or who have special health requirements that cannot be appropriately met in detentionThe situation in East Timor is very fluid and the Australian Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have been involved in a range of important negotiations with the Indonesian government on the future of East Timor. In relation to people in East Timor applying for visas to come to Australia, our embassy in Jakarta will continue to process visa applications to Australia according to the requirements of the visa class applied for.458015:12:004580Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Finally, Madam President, I should indicate for the record that Senator Ray asked me a question last week in relation to whether a member of my office had at any time either instructed or commented to the Australian Federal Police that there were too many people looking at travel rorts for politicians.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I did not use the word `rorts'; I said costs.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I am sorry—travel investigations or whatever of politicians. I have already advised Senator Ray of the answer, but I am taking this opportunity to put on the record that I indicated to Senator Ray that I have personally spoken to my chief of staff and the Federal Police liaison officer has spoken to the officer who was there before him. The answer from each of those is that they have had no such conversation. I have also received confirmation from the Federal Police that they have no knowledge of any such instruction or expression having been given. I indicated to Senator Ray that if his informant, whoever it is, chooses to come back to him and he has further information, then I will be happy to take it up, but the inquiries I have made reveal nil.458015:13:004580Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given today by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the proposed new tax system. Senator Kemp has left the chamber and it is no surprise. He has today misled the Australian people outrageously. Senator Kemp was asked on AM this morning—and I invite all senators to have a look at the transcript; it is worth a good read. Ms Kirk asked, `But is the gambling industry better off or not—yes or no—KI4PARERSenator Parer—On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: I would like some clarification of an issue. It was fairly clear during question time—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Sit down.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook! Senator Parer is on a point of order and I want to hear it.KI4PARERSenator Parer—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Some of the questions asked of Senator Kemp were probably out of order. With regard to a question from Senator Conroy, I refer to standing order 73(1)(c),(d) and (f); and also with regard to a question from Senator Carr on standing order 73(1)(l).3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Why don't you pay some taxes and sit down? Have you got shares in Crown?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy.KI4PARERSenator Parer—Madam Deputy President, Senator Conroy should go back to colouring in his book.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I ask Senator Conroy to cease interjecting and Senator Parer to address the chair in this regard.KI4PARERSenator Parer—The question I am asking is: where there is a question in question time that is apparently out of order, is it then in order at the end of question time for a senator to take note of that question?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam Deputy President, Senator Parer has been here long enough to know that if a question is out of order, it is knocked out of order at question time. If it has not been knocked out of order at question time, it can be noted in this chamber. If Senator Parer has doubts about the validity of a question, he should raise them during question time. On the final point of the point of order, a strict reading of the standing orders, rather than the practical application by successive Presidents, would virtually destroy question time and, therefore, fairly loose rein has been given to these questions. The only reason any of these questions today could have been knocked out is not on the substantive nature of them but on the way they are framed. So the time for Senator Parer to take his point of order clearly was during question time.KI4PARERSenator Parer—Madam Deputy President, the reason I raised it is that the President herself drew attention—I think it was in Senator Carr's question—to standing order 73(1)(l), which relates to proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: on the claims being made that there was some dispute about whether my question today was a matter still in committee or a part of proceedings before the chamber, I referred to the minister's comparing high roller gamblers with pensioners engaged in bingo and raffles. Statements by the minister appeared this morning on radio ABC, on AM, where he drew a comparison between charities from which we have seen various requests and charities regarding their bingos and raffles—not to questions in the chamber at the moment.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There was general advice given by Madam President as to the content of the questions. However, all of the questions were answered, and this is now a time for taking note of the answers. If the answers were given, then it is appropriate to take note of them.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—As I was saying, Senator Kemp this morning on AM was asked, `Is the gambling industry better off or not, yes or no, thanks to this amendment?'—not the original bill; this amendment. And he answered no. That is a gross misleading of the Australian community. Why? Because Crown, according to this morning's paper, have put in a submission to the Treasury asking for exemptions to this bill. What happened? The government in 128 amendments tabled last week slipped it in. When they were asked about the 128 amendments, what did they say? They said, `They are just technical. There are no revenue implications.' That is where the minister has consistently misled this parliament and consistently misled this community.But he went further than that: he tried to suggest that there was a bit of a balancer in those amendments—`We have looked after charities, bingo nights, raffles. We have done the right thing. We have got the high rollers—Ron Walker, the Liberal Party bagman in this country, has been looked after, but we have looked after bingo nights. It is okay. That is fair. That is what has happened.' We had a trail of people and witnesses before the Senate inquiry from charities saying, `Our business, our charities and the services we provide will be harmed. We will have to cut back on our services to the poor and the needy in this community. Don't do this package. Make changes to this package.'What did the Treasurer say? He said, `No, no, no.' There were 128 amendments, and not one that helped charities on the issues that they raised. But Liberal Party mate Ron Walker—the Liberal Party federal treasurer, bagman, confidant of the Prime Minister—picks up the phone and says, `What's happened? You are going to hurt our business. Crown is going to be hurt by what you have done. You have got to make an amendment.' So quietly it is slipped in.Does the government care if the tourism industry is hurt? Does the government care if small wineries have to close or if charities have to withdraw services? All of this was evidence before our committee, and the answer is no. It had its chance last week. There were 128 amendments, and did any of them address the concerns that were raised in those inquiries? No. But there is a special little one for the government mates. We had St Vincent de Paul say, `This is going to be the effect on our business, our charity, what we provide.' The Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Good Shepherd society, the Wesley Mission and pensioner groups from all over the country came and said, `Our business will be affected. The business of providing to the poor and needy will be badly affected by this.' What did the government do? Nothing. On the quiet they came in here and they slipped it in—an amendment among 128. The minister does not mention it when he speaks. The minister stands up and gives a five-minute speech about the amendments, and not a word—not one word—about the Crown amendment, looking after the Liberal Party mates. We have heard him waffling on today on AM, trying to cover up, trying to argue, `There is no revenue change.' That is what he said. Why did the Australian Casino Association approach the government in the first place? Why did they say, as the minister has admitted today, that this will have a detrimental effect on the industry? How much does this amendment for their mates give back to the high rollers, back to Ron Walker, back to the casino? That is what the Assistant Treasurer will not answer. Today in the committee stage, on AM and in question time he will not admit how much money, how many tens of millions of dollars, this amendment puts in the pockets of Ron Walker, Crown Casino and the rest of his Liberal Party mates. That is the issue here. The minister deserves the strongest condemnation for misleading the parliament. (Time expired)15:21:004582O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—It is an interesting argument that Senator Conroy has given us. He has given us the argument that when a business offers a rebate it should be required to pay GST, notwithstanding the fact that there is a rebate. If you are, for example, running a business and you give a discount to somebody, it would be absurd to expect that you could not claim that the discount you gave should be calculated when you work out the value added. The goods and services tax is a tax on the value added component. You look at your sales less your cost of sales. That is the basis of a goods and services tax. So if you have a rebate that you give, then of course you should be able to deduct the rebate for the purposes of calculating the tax liability. That is something that Senator Conroy does not understand, but that is exactly what we are doing here.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Why didn't you put it in the bill?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—It was always the case that the legislation was going to provide that the goods and services tax should be applied to the margin.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why isn't it in the bill?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—If there is any doubt about this, I suggest that honourable senators on the other side of the chamber should in fact look at the government's policy document dated August 1998. It says:The GST will apply to the operator's margin, not to the prizes paid out. That is, the tax will apply to the difference between total ticket sales or bets taken and the value of prizes or winnings already paid out. As states already tax gambling highly, then there may need to be corresponding reductions in state gambling taxes.They do not want to understand what we are talking about in terms of rebates, or maybe they cannot understand it. Let me explain it to them in terms that they can understand. There is one rebate that they know about all too well on the other side, and that is the rebate given by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to the former Prime Minister on his borrowings. What was the rebate the Commonwealth Bank gave to Paul Keating on his borrowings? It was $4.9 million of write-off, in May 1995. He did not have to pay $4.9 million of interest. That is a rebate. Maybe that is a rebate they might understand on the other side of the chamber. We understand it on this side of the chamber.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Would you call him a high roller?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—He was a high roller for sure. He just rolled right over the top of that interest bill. He did not have to pay it. I suppose there is a difference between the Commonwealth Bank and casinos. When you go into a casino, you do not know whether you are going to win or lose. There is no sure thing in a casino. But as far as Paul Keating was concerned the Commonwealth Bank was a sure thing. He was sure he was not going to have to pay interest. He was sure he was going to be able to take the money and run. Everybody else, when they go into a casino, is gambling. Paul Keating goes in and just makes withdrawal after withdrawal after withdrawal and he never has to pay it back. A rebate is basically a discount that you give and you should not have to pay GST on it. So the Commonwealth Bank, for example, should not be expected to pay GST on rebates it gives to Paul Keating any more than a casino should be expected to pay GST on rebates it gives to regular customers.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—We get to a situation where the Labor Party, having raised the issue of rebates, do not want to know about rebates. If you try to pretend that a discount that you give to a regular customer is not a reduction, then you are going to catch every business in this country. It is a business expense.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Only for multimillionaires.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—The only people who get $4.9 million rebates from the Commonwealth Bank are multimillionaire former Labor prime ministers. The tragic thing is that he got the $4.9 million rebate when he was Prime Minister.Senator Boswell interjecting—EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—When the Commonwealth Bank, Senator Boswell, was in majority public ownership, he got a rebate of $4.9 million—and he did not even put it on his register of pecuniary interests.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Go outside and say that.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I do not have to go outside and say it, Senator Cook, because I am saying it in the highest forum of this country. It is in this chamber in this parliament where it ought to be heard, and if you do not think—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are a coward.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—If you want full disclosure, Senator Cook, will you give me leave to table the documents I sought to table last week? If you want full disclosure will you give me leave? I ask leave to table the documents I sought to table last week.Leave not granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Thank you!15:26:004583Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The two questions that Senator Kemp could not answer today in his very inept performance were these: first, why did the original bill not have these concessions in it and, if they were in the forward estimates, who blundered by not having them in the original bill; and, second, why were these two particular amendments that relate to this snuck in so quietly without explanation, given all the publicity around the other amendments? To understand that, you have to go to who asked for the amendments and what leverage do they have on this government?It reminds me of the old song My God, How the Money Rolls In. The same characters are always there—including the federal treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Ron Walker, who himself boasts has raised tens of millions of dollars for the Liberal Party over the last decade and a half, who was actually going to resign, and tendered his resignation at the start of this year, but who has been prevailed on to continue in the post until a suitable replacement can be found. He has boasted that he has been a fundraiser for the Liberal Party and has raised tens of millions of dollars for the Liberal Party.He is also the person, it was finally revealed, who donated $4.6 million to the Liberal Party back in 1996 to get them out of debt. He did that in a sneaky way. He ascribed that particular loan or donation to the Greenfields Foundation, so originally we could not find out who the donor was. What was he ashamed of? After all, he must love the Liberal Party. Surely he would want everyone to know he had given them $4.6 million. The reason he sought to cover that up is that in fact he has been the beneficiary of a degree of political favouritism unequalled in this country—for instance, from Mr Jeff Kennett. He was able first of all to re-bid for the casino licence and just happened to jump it by the exact amount necessary to win it—to make it a draw. Then he was given an expansion that meant tens of millions of dollars in extra revenue. Finally, the contract he signed was forgiven. He was bound to build a second tower to the casino. He was bound to build another theatre. All that was forgiven by the Kennett government. Fines of about $500,000 for every day's delay in that contract were all forgiven—all a free gift for Ron Walker, absolutely cost free, for the man that had raised millions of dollars for the Liberal Party. Now we have it again. Jeff Kennett has run out of biscuits to throw to this bloke. Now we have the Prime Minister and his cronies doing it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, would you please not reflect upon federal or state parliamentarians with unparliamentary language.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We have the casinos of Australia, led by Mr Ron Walker—national federal fundraiser for the Liberal Party—lobbying this government to amend the original bill and sneak it in. The Assistant Treasurer in this place consistently refuses to reveal what the worth of these amendments is. They are not in the explanatory memorandum or the financial consequences, yet it seems that the consequences are worth tens of millions of dollars.Where do those tens of millions of dollars go? They do not go into the pockets of the high rollers, necessarily, but into the profits of the casino. Those very profits of the casino then go into Mr Ron Walker's pocket. Then Mr Ron Walker gives $4.6 million to the Liberal Party. That leads us to the conclusion that this government is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the casino industry, just like the Victorian state government is a wholly owned subsidiary. They click their fingers; governments deliver. It is a most unhealthy thing in an Australian democracy.In the end, it may be impossible to calculate what benefit this will be to Ron Walker—and to Lloyd Williams, a person who is basically apolitical and just looking after the interests of his casino. But as long as Ron Walker is a key figure in Crown Casino, it is inextricably allied to the Liberal Party of Australia. But I have some good news for the Australian public. Ron Walker is obviously a gambler running a casino. I reckon this amendment will hit the fence. So I have this message for Mr Ron Walker: don't pay up to the Liberal Party, don't kick into the deduct box just yet, because I don't think you are going to get a cent out of this amendment. I think it is going to be sunk in this chamber and disappear without trace. (Time expired)15:31:004585Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—As is Labor's wont when they don't have any policy issues to put before us, when they have nothing of substance, they get into the game of slinging mud. We have seen that today from Senator Ray. Indeed, we saw it yesterday from Senator Ray when he made some outrageous allegations in this parliament. Allow me to remind honourable senators of what he said about ministerial expense accounts. He said:Then there is the third area that I am highly critical of; that is, a minister taking out either his staff, departmental officials or journalists and sticking the taxpayer with the bill. This may have happened in the past under a Labor government, but I have never heard of it.It is a bit like how Senator Ray and all his colleagues had never heard about the $10.3 billion deficit, although everybody knew it existed. Senator Ray, I believe, may well have been guilty of misleading the parliament. Senator Ray yesterday was given certain documents about departmental expenditure. I understand they included expenditures by ministers for veterans' affairs, both Mr Scott and Mr Sciacca. Why did he not have the integrity to advise the Senate of Mr Sciacca's expenditures with journalists? What amazes me about this opposition is that the Labor Party allows a mere backbencher like Senator Ray to come into this chamber and make these sorts of allegations when there are people on the front bench of the Labor Party who are guilty of the conduct of which Senator Ray complains.Let us focus on somebody who usually has some scandal surrounding him, Senator Nick Bolkus. On 23 May 1995 he spent $270 of departmental money to dine out with that poor, impoverished shock jock John Laws and others. Senator Ray's allegations undoubtedly would have been known to Senator Bolkus, but Senator Bolkus did not come in here and say: `Hang about, Senator Ray, you are just a backbencher. We on the front bench of the Labor Party, when we were ministers, engaged in this sort of conduct and, yes, I, Senator Bolkus, took out people like John Laws for dinner.' I have a whole list of expenses from Senator Bolkus taking people from the media out for lunch, such as representatives of the Australian newspaper and even the Adelaide Advertiser on 6 November 1995. And so it goes on.I am sure Senator Sherry will remember this. On 31 May there was a portfolio coordination meeting, including former ministers Beddall and Collins and parliamentary secretary Sherry and the staff of their three offices, paid for by the department. Senator Sherry never got up in this place and said: `Senator Ray, you are wrong. The departmental budgets do allow for these things, and I have been the beneficiary of that sort of hospitality.' Yet Senator Ray comes in here telling us that he is—allow me to quote accurately—`highly critical of ministers taking out their staff, departmental officials or journalists and sticking the taxpayer with a bill'. Backbencher Senator Ray ought to consult with his frontbenchers like Mr Sciacca and Senator Bolkus and former frontbencher Senator Sherry, who was a beneficiary of that.There are lists and lists of the accounts run up by these former ministers wining and dining their departmental officials, their staff and journalists. Senator Ray throughout the whole period of the Labor government operated in the ether—see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil—but he tries to stick it into the government when he is in opposition. Senator Ray should be judging this government by the standards which he himself set while he was a senior cabinet minister. He knew what was going on. (Time expired)EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I take a point of order. Can I just clarify whether at the conclusion of my speech leave was or was not granted? I didn't hear an objection. If it was not granted, I just want it on the record so I know who objected.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There were objections raised. I repeat: as I ruled then, leave was not given. Leave was not granted. I repeat it for the third time now.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I didn't think it would be.15:37:004585Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Today I asked Senator Kemp the question:. . . when the Prime Minister spoke of finetuning the GST package, was he referring to changes to provide benefits for highroller clients of Crown Casino? When he spoke of the importance of mateship, was he referring to special deals with wealthy mates to prevent the GST eating into their gambling profits?I also asked the minister if the government could explain how it was that `giving multimillion dollar benefits to casinos for their high rollers while offering pensioners a compensation package that will erode to zero in a matter of years' was possibly fair. We have seen today that the government is not able to answer those questions. I think all the people who are listening to this discussion and who might be aware of the matters that are before the parliament ought to bear in mind just how important the casino is in Melbourne. It is described as `the only game in town'; it is the biggest game in town. For the Victorian government, that has been demonstrated to be a fact over and over again. We are now seeing, with an election coming up in Victoria, these attitudes being reflected by Liberals in the federal government as well.Over a month ago, on 13 March, the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal Party hierarchy were among the 300 guests who were gathered at Mr Kroger's and Miss Ann Peacock's wedding, which was held in the Palladium Room in the Crown Casino in Melbourne. They all appeared to enjoy themselves immensely. I have no doubt that Miss Ann Peacock was very familiar with the place; she was in fact a public relations officer for Crown Casino. At this society wedding there was immense enjoyment, as one could understand, because the Liberal Party personnel obviously were of the view that they were amongst friends. They were enjoying the `most favoured status' treatment received from Victoria Inc. that we have noticed again and again.I think we should also know exactly who was in attendance. We know that Ron Walker was there. We know that Lloyd Williams definitely had a ball. We know that the new owner—Kerry Packer—was not there, but we do know that his son Jamie was there. We know that Mr Costello was there. We know that Mr John Howard was there. Poor old Jeff Kennett and his good wife, Felicity, due to the bad publicity associated with the loss of their defamation case the day before, withdrew their attendance.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, please be cautious.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—We are not quite certain if Senator Rod Kemp was there, but then he does not necessarily get invited to the inner circles. Given his embarrassment today, it is possible that he was not a party to the backroom deals that were done at this wedding. It was like a Third World tin-pot dictatorship with the obvious, conspicuous consumption of wealth and the obvious, conspicuous display of influence. It is a very cosy relationship that has been developed, and it was all on public display, with the casino bosses and the Liberal Party bosses all mixing and mingling together. I am sure that the National President of the Liberal Party, Mr Ron Walker, Director of Crown Casino, was in a particularly good mood because he understood the great benefits that would be derived from a gathering such as this. He understood that, when it came to a discussion of these matters, there could be no better place to discuss the future prosperity of Crown Casino and the future prosperity of the Liberal Party than at Crown Casino and at a wedding such as this.We were told in a recent newspaper article that it is usual when a couple gets married for them to invite their nearest and dearest. The Peacock-Kroger wedding was something different: it brought together people from business, politics, entertainment, gambling and sport. It was an opportunity to mend bridges, forge connections and network; `the society wedding of the year', as someone described it. Well, if last night's gathering was society, then society has changed. The old rules do not apply any more. Names, schools or pedigrees do not necessarily open doors; influence does. And that is precisely what occurred. We heard, naturally enough, from the Prime Minister, who was doing his most favoured impression, the old minstrel song We Shall Not Be Moved.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do not reflect upon a member of parliament.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—He maintains his public position that the government is immutable on the question of the GST, that only finetuning is needed. When it comes to the questions of compensation for pensioners and the quarantining of education and health, there is no room for amendment to the government's package. But when it comes to the question of millionaire high rollers, there is plenty of room to manoeuvre. There is plenty of room to adjust and develop the government's position. (Time expired)15:42:004587Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I, like Senator Abetz, am quite amazed that all the Labor Party can now do is rubbish every individual, whether they are in the parliament or outside it. Obviously all bets are off. But it is improper for the Labor Party to come in here and continually make allegations without looking at their own backyard. Senator Abetz clearly demonstrated today the hypocrisy of doing exactly that by referring to Senator Robert Ray's speech last night in which he said that he was critical of ministers taking out their staff, departmental officials or journalists and—quoting Senator Robert Ray, of course—`sticking the taxpayer with the bill'. Senator Robert Ray also was highly critical of people taking out union representatives and ministerial staff. He was also critical of the possibility of finding a journalist who was worth a $72.50 lunch because, at the bottom of the pack, he said, `Most of these people'—staff and ministers—`are being paid travel allowance and should not stick the taxpayer with the bill.' Why then did Senator Robert Ray—or anyone else in the Labor Party—not mention former Minister Beddall and his activities?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—What were they?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Senator Abetz, I am glad you asked. Let me tell you. There were a number of meetings with officials. One that cost a mere $322 was held on 21 July 1993 at the Boat House By The Lake restaurant—not an unfavourable restaurant, a very nice one.There was a bilateral meeting with other ministers during the Cairns Group ministerial meeting involving Minister Crean. The attendees were ministers and his ministerial col leagues. The bill was $188 at the International Hotel, Geneva. Isn't that interesting? They were all paid travel allowance. Why did they have to stick the taxpayer with the bill, as Senator Ray would say? There was another portfolio luncheon meeting at a Latin restaurant in Melbourne involving ministers and officials. The bill totalled $202.90. Then there was a portfolio coordination meeting involving ministers and staff of the three offices.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Senator Sherry would have had his travel allowance.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Senator Sherry certainly would have had his travel allowance. The bill for that particular meeting with the ministers and staff of the three offices—for which they would have all been paid TA but for which they gave the taxpayer the bill—was $236.30. It goes on and on and on. There are so many of them that I will run out of time. There is another one involving ministers and officials, the bill for which came to $537.20. There is yet another one with ministers, staff and media—Senator Ray said we should not entertain media—totalling $325 at the Pier 9 restaurant in Brisbane.There is one doozey. Senator Ray says that you should not entertain union officials. Why then did Minister Beddall entertain CPSU members at the Commonwealth Centre in Melbourne? Why did they have more and more official luncheons, meetings and dinners? This one amounted to $271.60. The list goes on. There are a lot of meetings with journalists. There was a journalists briefing in Sydney at the Waterfront Restaurant which amounted to a mere $223. There are meetings with other journalists. There are Australia Remembers dinners and lunches and so forth.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—That was Mr Sciacca.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—Thank you, Senator Abetz. That was for Minister Sciacca. Here comes the doozey. There was a function here with unknown attendees.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—It must have been a good one.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—It was obviously a ripper. It was $125.75 for unknown attendees at Parliament House. There is another one here for two unknown attendees at the Lobby Restaurant in Canberra totalling $147.50. We are talking in 1994 dollars and 1995 dollars, but they cannot remember whom they took. It was obviously a fantastic time.I think it is time that someone in the Labor Party started showing some leadership. Do not start picking out certain things, pretending that you are not guilty of them. The fact is that the guidelines that were in place under Labor have not changed—not one thing has changed. Do not pretend it has. Senator Ray was not aware of any Labor ministers who had meals with journalists that were paid for by departments. He should read the documents that he was given.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees45884588458815:48:004588Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I present the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into public dental services. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO PUBLIC DENTAL SERVICESFEBRUARY 1999Introduction1. On 28 May 1998, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry into Public Dental Services released its report. The terms of reference for the inquiry covered:. current and future dental needs of low income earners;. the effect of the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program (CDHP);. the nature of the Commonwealth's responsibility under the Australian Constitution to make laws for the provision of dental services; . the Commonwealth's role in setting and monitoring national goals for oral health in Australia; and. options for reforming the delivery of public dental services.2. The Committee made nine recommendations, some of which suggested some future Commonwealth involvement in aspects of public dental care, particularly through the Public Health Partnerships. Significantly, however, the Committee did not recommend the reintroduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program (CDHP) or some similar large scale funding intervention. The Coalition members of the Committee noted in their minority report that the recommendations appeared to be "an expensive and ineffective method of tackling a problem which has traditionally been the responsibility of the States". They were also reluctant for the Commonwealth "to issue directives to the States, which should be free to deliver services in the manner they see fit".3. Notwithstanding the Committee's finding that some low income earners currently have difficulty accessing public dental services, the Government's position continues to be that the provision of public dental services is a State responsibility and that the States must resolve the structural, management and financial problems in their dental services. Unfortunately, the advantages gained by the CDHP in reducing waiting times and improving access were largely offset by the unwillingness of the States to use the time to enhance their public dental services, despite knowing that there was no guarantee that the CDHP would be extended. To its credit, Queensland accepted its responsibility when the CDHP was wound up and provided additional funding to maintain services. The fact that the access problems in some States are not evident in Queensland shows the problems are not as intractable as suggested in the report. Nor, by implication, is it necessary for the Commonwealth to intervene yet again in what is essentially a State matter. The Government also notes that the Committee concluded that while the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to provide or regulate dental services it can exercise that power at its own discretion.4. With the introduction of the GST, States will be better off than they would be under existing Commonwealth/State financial arrangements. The additional revenue that will accrue to the States through the GST will be at the disposal of the States to augment the range of health services available to the public, including public dental services. It is the Government's intention to allow States to determine their own priorities in the level of public dental services they provide within their jurisdictions, as they traditionally have done. 5. The Government's overall response to the recommendations of the report is that by and large, Commonwealth involvement in their implementation would be ineffective. The States must take up those recommendations they consider will improve access and service delivery. For its part the Commonwealth is prepared to assist the States to deliver better services by facilitating the inclusion of reliable oral health data in the National Public Health Information Development Plan, if this is what the States want.6. The Government provides the following specific responses to the recommendations presented in the Senate Committee's report.Recommendation 1: That the Commonwealth, in consultation with the States and Territories and other key stakeholders in the public and private dental sectors, support the development of programs to improve the promotion of oral health throughout Australia.7. Under the National Public Health Partnership Memorandum of Understanding, to which all Australian Health Ministers are signatories, State and Territories are responsible for the provision of health promotion services to meet the needs of their respective populations. If a jurisdiction determines that oral health promotion is a high priority, it is able to develop specific programs within the context of the full range of health promotion services offered within the State. Oral health has not been established by Australian Health Ministers as a National Health Priority Area, which is the precursor to planning for coordinated national action to achieve agreed national targets and performance measures.Recommendation 2: That the Commonwealth Government support the introduction of a vocational training program for new dental graduates, especially to assist in the delivery of oral health services to people in rural or remote areas. 8. The Government supports the implementation of a vocational training program and notes that given each State's responsibility to maintain an adequate workforce in the public health sector, it is a State responsibility to cover the cost of establishing or maintaining such a program.9. At the same time, the Commonwealth does provide some support for essential infrastructure in the form of multi-purpose service centres that are available to underpin the provision of oral health services to people in rural and remote areas, should States decide to invest in these services as a priority. Also Government's University Department of Rural Health Program has the potential to assist in the delivery of oral health services to people in rural and remote areas. The establishment of a university department at Whyalla in South Australia provides an example of where the Government's 1996 initiative has established appropriate infrastructure in the nearby city of Port Augusta for a viable dental service. With the cooperation of the university sector, the model established at Port Augusta could be introduced in other rural areas of Australia where there are university departments of rural health: that is, Broken Hill, Mount Isa, Shepparton, Launceston, Geraldton and Alice Springs.10. Some Aboriginal Medical Services have infrastructure in place which can be used to support dental graduates undertaking vocational training supported by the States. The use of facilities in these services by dental graduates undertaking training will not only provide excellent learning opportunities but will benefit the communities by providing a minimum level of service. Appropriate supervision arrangements for dental graduates would need to be a key element of the vocational training provided in these areas.11. The Government notes from the Senate report that a working party with primary interests in the operation of a vocational training program for dental graduates is examining this matter and that the States and Territories will consider the report of the working party when it becomes available. The Senate report does, however, point to the difficulties of the proposal such as supervision of trainees in remote areas and the estimated cost; issues that will need to be considered by any authority adopting the proposal.Recommendation 3: That the use of dental auxiliaries such as therapists and hygienists be expanded, particularly to cater for the needs of specific disadvantaged groups and that, to this end, the States and Territories be encouraged to review legislation restricting the employment of such auxiliaries.12. The Government supports this recommendation. As State legislation limits the employment of dental therapists to the public sector and its provider agencies, the report has highlighted a need to examine and amend relevant State legislation, both in regard to where therapists can be employed and the age limitations of the client population they can treat.13. The specific dental workforce requirements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the community sector will need to be addressed in any legislative changes made by the State/ Territories. These needs can be identified within the context of the Framework agreements for indigenous health between the Commonwealth, the State/Territories and the community sector where regional planning processes are being established. A National Health Workforce Modelling Project underway will also be assessing overall workforce requirements in this area. 14. This recommendation appears to have the support of the key players in the provision of dental services and now requires adoption by States and Territories.Recommendation 4: That support be given to a national oral health training strategy for health workers and carers, specifically including those working in the fields of aged care and Aboriginal health.13. The intention of the above recommendation in promoting nationally consistent oral health training is supported. Should the States choose to develop national strategies through a forum such as the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, the Commonwealth would be supportive.14. The Government recognises the special needs of older people with regard to dental health. The Standards and Guidelines for Residential Aged Care Services state that residents' oral and dental health should be maintained though ensuring that regular assessment, treatment and access to appropriate dental services occurs. Workers in the residential aged care sector have a responsibility to understand that oral health has a major influence on residents' quality of life. The guidelines suggest that staff education should address oral and dental care, including strategies for residents with dementia and challenging behaviour. While the Government encourages the pursuit of best practice in all facets of residential aged care, by both service providers and professional associations, it prefers not to be prescriptive in its approach as to how this can be achieved. However, oral health training strategies could be incorporated into existing education programs for carers of the aged, or where necessary, programs could be implemented.15. It is important to consider oral health training, particularly training in prevention, in the context of the overall health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Programs in oral health can be introduced into health worker training as part of the overall primary health care approach. A review of health worker training is currently underway and will be considering a range of issues including gaps in training delivery. Oral health care training can be taken into account as part of the review process.Recommendation 5: That the Commonwealth Government assist the States and Territories to establish, conduct and evaluate highly targeted pilot programs to address the priority oral health needs of the following specific disadvantaged groups: pre school-age children (1 to 5 years), young adult Health Card holders (18 to 25 years), aged adult Health Card holders (65+ years), the home bound, rural and remote communities, and indigenous Australians. Such programs should include a capacity for the individual beneficiary to make a contribution to the treatment costs. 16. The evaluation of highly targeted pilot programs to address priority oral health needs is highly desirable if the needs of specific disadvantaged groups are to be addressed. Under the former CDHP the Commonwealth funded several demonstration projects with the aim of evaluating strategies for improving service delivery in rural and remote areas, including services for indigenous people. The evaluations provided some useful models of service delivery which States have incorporated into their public dental health care programs. At this stage it is up to the States to pilot programs for any other disadvantaged groups within their jurisdictions that they consider require special attention.Recommendation 6: That the Commonwealth Government adopt a leadership role in introducing a national oral health policy, and give consideration to the possibility of using the National Public Health Partnership as the vehicle for developing and implementing that policy in partnership with the States and Territories. 17. The National Public Health Partnership is a working arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to strengthen the national public health infrastructure and response capacity. Its focus is on public health; that is, disease and injury prevention and control, and health promotion. It does not have a mandate in policies and programs for the treatment, management and care of diseases and illnesses once they have occurred. Recommendations 6 and 7 clearly envisage a national oral health policy, which has a "whole of system" approach; that is, there is an emphasis on access to treatment services, quality and service targets in addition to prevention and promotion. Nevertheless, the National Public Health Partnership, in considering national public health information requirements, is including information about oral health status and service utilisation in its deliberations. This work should, in the longer term, enhance population health outcomes in the States and Territories.18. In addition, the Commonwealth funds the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to support the Dental Statistics and Research Unit to collect and analyse data and report on adult access to dental care and adult oral care.Recommendation 7: That the national oral health policy include the:. Setting of national oral health goals;. establishment of national standards for the provision of, and access to, oral health care and the quality of services;. establishment of national strategies and priorities for oral health care reform, with an emphasis on preventive dentistry; . setting of minimum service targets; and. monitoring national oral health goals through the maintenance of a national data collection and evaluation centre and undertaking research into current and projected needs.19. This recommendation is partially supported by the Government, in so far as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (funded by the Health portfolio) will continue to maintain its data collection, including dental statistics, for the foreseeable future. This data will provide basic information for States' use in planning, policy formulation and evaluation.20. At present the Commonwealth is unaware of any evidence for declaring oral health a National Health Priority Area, which would be the necessary first step for national policy development, encompassing a "whole of health system" approach, the negotiation of goals and targets, service benchmarks, national monitoring and reporting processes.21. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth will table recommendations six and seven in the National Public Health Partnership forum to ensure adequate consideration of their public health aspects. Those aspects of the recommendations that relate to treatment as opposed to prevention and promotional activities would need to be separately considered by States and Territories as they are outside the domain of public health and are not the business of the National Public Health Partnership.Recommendation 8: That the Commonwealth allocate resources for a national oral health survey, to be conducted as a priority, to establish data on the oral health status and oral health needs of the Australian community. 22. The Commonwealth supports the collection of data on the oral health status and oral health needs of the Australian community. To this end the Commonwealth funds the Dental Statistics Research Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.23. Good baseline data on oral health is important and the Commonwealth is actively trying to include the collection of such information in the National Public Health Information Development Plan now being finalised as part of the work of the National Public Health Information Working Group.Recommendation 9: That the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services create a dedicated section or appoint an appropriately qualified senior officer with responsibility for oral health matters, and that the necessary resources to fulfil the role and responsibilities of such an office be provided.24. This recommendation is not supported by the Government. The level of Commonwealth involvement in dental health is appropriate given that the planning, funding and delivery of public dental services are State responsibilities. Policy matters across States are properly raised in the Health Ministers' forum. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) convenes specialist working parties when necessary to consider specific dental issues such as fluoridation of water supplies and amalgam and mercury use in dentistry. Appropriate members of the dental profession are then appointed as necessary.15:48:004591O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Documents45914591459110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following Auditor-General's report No. 37 of 1998-99: Performance Audit—Management of Tax File Numbers—The Australian Taxation Office .459115:49:004591Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table a document entitled Territorial Limits: Norfolk Island's Immigration Act and Human Rights , pursuant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.Bills4591r775459115:49:004591Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 , together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous45924592459215:49:004592Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present additional information received by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-99 additional estimates hearings.Committees45924592459215:50:004592Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Crowley, I present additional information received by the Community Affairs References Committee relating to matters arising from the implementation of recommendation No. 18 of the committee's report on the CJD settlement offer. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to the document.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—The Community Affairs References Committee tabled its report on the inquiry into the CJD settlement offer on 1 October 1997. The government responded on 31 March 1998 accepting all but two of the committee's recommendations. In accordance with recommendation 18, Professor Margaret Allars reviewed certain information on scientific matters that became available during the committee's inquiry. Following the completion of this review, the then Minister for Health and Family Services forwarded to the committee in August 1998 a copy of Professor Allars' report for the committee's information.Drs Howes, Peters and Whitten, who had appeared as witnesses before the committee's original inquiry, were concerned about comments about themselves in the Allars report. The committee subsequently received detailed responses from each of the doctors to comments in the Allars report. The committee has agreed that, to resolve this matter, it would table for the information of senators the Allars report, the doctors' responses and an opinion from the Clerk of the Senate relating to the status of the Allars report.Miscellaneous4592459215:52:004592Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement in relation to a question asked of me by Senator Schacht at question time.Leave granted.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—During question time today, Senator Schacht asked me whether I had instructed ATSIC to remove from the ATSIC web site an assessment of the effects of the GST package on indigenous communities. I answered that I had not. I wish to reaffirm that I have not instructed ATSIC to remove any assessment of the effects of the GST package on indigenous communities from their web site over the term of this parliament. Naturally, I assumed that Senator Schacht's question related to this parliament and the current debate.However, during the course of the campaign prior to the last election, ATSIC had on their web site an assessment of the effects of the GST package on indigenous communities. I considered that material to be highly political and, therefore, in breach of the guidelines relating to material that departments can have on their web sites during the caretaker period. The guidelines make it clear that material of a political nature must not be placed on departmental or ministerial web sites during a campaign. Naturally, I asked ATSIC to remove the material, as I considered it to be in breach of the caretaker guidelines.Miscellaneous459215:53:004592Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—On behalf of Senator Carr, I move:That the Senate notes the inconsistency in the view of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that it would be inappropriate for a non-Australian to open the Olympic Games, yet appropriate for a non-Australian to remain as Head of State. In moving this motion, I draw reference to the double standards that the Prime Minister of Australia has applied to our most—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do not reflect upon the Prime Minister.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—prestigious sporting event. The Sydney Olympics is a good news story for Australia and, indeed, it is a very good news story for the government. It is an opportunity for Australia to be at the forefront of international attention. For Sydney, the exposure and attention derived from being an Olympic host city is immeasurable.That quite memorable 4.00 a.m. radio broadcast in which Juan Antonio Samaranch announced that Sydney had been chosen as Olympic host city will forever stick in my mind, and we have heard much over recent times since then. However, in the euphoria surrounding that announcement and the profound level of work that has occurred since, both within the organising committee and within sporting organisations in this country, it seems that one issue has yet remained unresolved: who will have the great honour of opening the Olympic Games.One would think this would be quite a simple question, that indeed we would turn to the person who heads the Australian government. But we find ourselves in the intervening period embroiled in a debate about whether or not Australia should become a republic. The person who one would think is the obvious choice, having in his hands the prime ministership of this country, we now find advocating in the republican debate that Australia should not have an Australian head of state; that, indeed, it is entirely appropriate to have someone else—that is, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—fulfilling that role.I had the privilege of attending the Constitutional Convention as a delegate on behalf of the Australian parliament, indeed the Australian Labor Party. There I heard the Prime Minister advocate at great length his commitment to an Australia that persisted with a monarchy and a monarchist in the position of head of state. So it is with some surprise that we come to this point in this particular debate where we find the Prime Minister very pleased to announce to all Australians and, indeed, our monarchy overseas that he will be the one opening the Olympic Games.Sitting back and looking at how this scenario plays out, I often wonder about the conversations that could have occurred within the Prime Minister's office: `Well, we've got this position on the monarchy; we want to perpetuate Australia as a monarchist state with Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. But oh, oh, that means we might miss out on a good news story; we might miss out on opening the Olympic Games. So let's just put aside our commitment to Queen Elizabeth being our head of state, and why don't you open the games, Prime Minister?' `What a great idea.'So here we have it. We find ourselves in this place contemplating the double standard that has been applied to this whole issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic. With the acute symbolism relating to our status as a nation provided by the opportunity of the Olympics on the global stage, in my view we should proceed down the path to becoming the Republic of Australia before the Olympic Games. Why? So that we can have an Australian head of state, the official head of state, being the one to preside over and conduct the opening of that prestigious event.It is a pretty sad reflection on a government whose approach to governance to date, I think, has been riddled with many inconsistencies, and I would focus particularly on its inconsistencies in relation to sport. It is clear that this government is happy to involve itself in every good news story in relation to sport. But it is not so keen on putting its money where its mouth is. It is not so keen on coming up with the dollars that will fund Australia's capability to develop its presence in community sport and that will ensure that we can hang on to what is a very proud tradition and record in our performance and participation levels in what is far more than a weekend or weeknight pastime. Indeed, sport is part of our culture, and an essential part at that. I look over the past three years, as I see John Howard announce to the country that he will open this great event—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Mr Howard, please.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—with, no doubt, great fanfare and international coverage, and note that this government has withdrawn funding from sport, particularly at the community level, in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. At each successive budget we have seen a further diminution in public investment in community sport in this country. Whilst there has been an attempt to maintain the elite funding levels in preparation for the Olympics, that has been at the expense of community based sport.So, in the very first instance, this government is prepared to leap to the highest podium, the highest platform, and claim credit for a glorious event in the most blatant way possible, but it is not prepared to underpin that involvement or that commitment at the elite level where it counts—at the grassroots level, providing an opportunity for all Australians to participate in sport.Over the last three years of the coalition government, we have seen a complete rejection of the structure that Labor put in place in its previous period of governance. Labor put in place a comprehensive approach to not just managing the community level of activity and participation in sport but also building a structure that allowed the progression of community athletes into elite sport. More and more we have seen under the coalition government this disaggregation between community sport and elite sport. Why? Because they are just not prepared to supply that base level funding to the sporting associations.So, when I talk about the government withdrawing their commitment to sport, it is actually at that fundamental level of how communities organise themselves around participation. A significant number of national sporting associations were actually defunded in the first budget of the coalition government. Surprise, surprise, they were the borderline sports: is it recreation or is it sport? Recfish is a classic example of this. It is one of the greatest participation sports in this country. Yet, through an elaborate interpretation of what constituted a sport, the govern ment decided that they would defund this particular organisation, regardless of the fact that fishing and the sport associated with it has one of the highest participation rates in this country, and for many of the participants it is the only sport they participate in.The issue of participatory sport goes one step further—that is, where its status is in the policy scheme of things. The coalition government have reduced funding in this area and they have done it at a time when the short-sightedness of this policy could not be more obvious. They have done it at a time when the Olympic Games actually presents the most profound opportunity to encourage all Australians to participate even further in this particular activity. We do have a great legacy with respect to sport, and why not create an even better one? How often does a country get the Olympic Games?How often would a country like Australia have the opportunity to actually focus on a level of physical activity, be it centred on organised sport, on the platform of celebrating our national performance in such an international sporting event as the Olympics provides? It does not come along very often, and yet we see this opportunity being squandered as community sport is devalued by this government through defunding and we see the disaggregation of the relationship between elite sporting programs and community level sport.The other area that is worth mentioning is the Paralympics. So often in the Olympics debate the athletes with disabilities and their event, the Paralympics, do not rate a mention. At this stage, the Paralympic Games are yet to attract a host broadcaster, and a far greater degree of attention needs to be paid to this aspect of the Paralympics event by this government. I ask this question: if the Prime Minister is so keen to involve himself in opening the Olympics, does he have an equal interest in the Paralympics?The funding pressure on the Paralympic movement and organisation leaves a lot to be desired. This is not an organisation which has access to the sorts of sponsorship arrangements and deals that the able-bodied athletics associations have been able to organise for themselves. They are worthy recipients of very active government support but, unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming. So I put out a challenge to the government in this respect: with all of the hoo-ha, the accolades, the recognition and the good news stories that will come from devoting time, energy, resources and money—taxpayers' money at that—to what I hope will be an exciting and positive event, why not look a little further to the Paralympic event and look at the inspiration, bravery and courage of those athletes, what they bring to Australian society and how they contribute to the spirit of Australian sporting culture?Like so many other Australians, I find that the Paralympians, perhaps even more so than the able-bodied athletes, really say what has to be said about the spirit of Australian participatory sport, about having a go and about getting out there and being the best that you can be in, let us face it, very challenging circumstances. For my part, nothing is more inspiring than seeing our athletes with disabilities getting out on the track, getting in the pool or wherever, doing their stuff and bringing home those accolades for Australia.So where do we go from here? In introducing this issue, I spoke about the Prime Minister's commitment to retaining Australia as a monarchy and about Australia having a sporting culture that goes way beyond just a weekend pastime and the interrelationship between the two. This country really needs a Prime Minister who brings consistency to policy making. We in this country really need a Prime Minister who, if he is to accurately reflect the views as to where we need to go as a nation in developing our identity and in making the most of what is an incredible opportunity in hosting the Olympic Games in this country, first of all, must recognise the importance of an Australian head of state, which he has inadvertently supported by his haste and his endeavour to be at the forefront of this Olympic event.This inconsistency in the Prime Minister's position is not going unnoticed in the community. It is not going unnoticed that, in the first instance, the Prime Minister argues against an Australian head of state, yet then vehemently advocates behind the scenes that he, as an Australian, must open the Olympic Games because that is what is important. He knew the rules and protocols with respect to the Olympic Games; he knew that it was the job of the Australian head of state to open the Olympic Games. But no, he chose to do a little bit of work behind the scenes and get his face, his body, up on the podium and behind the microphone on the big day in the year 2000.I do not think the Australian public will forget the Prime Minister's actions when it comes to the referendum that will be conducted later this year in this country to decide whether or not we should go down the path of becoming a republic and put into our Constitution, our laws, that we have an Australian head of state. I actually think the Prime Minister and those in the government who do not support an Australian head of state—and, hence, the current proposal relating to our progression towards a republic—are politically obligated now to reconsider their position. If they do not reconsider and if the Prime Minister does not turn around now and say to the Australian public, `I was wrong. I now understand the symbolic importance of having an Australian head of state so we can do things like open the Olympic Games,' then I think the Australian public will treat the Prime Minister with the contempt he deserves.16:10:004595O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Senator Lundy has raised two issues and I will deal with them seriatim. The first is this government's commitment to sport. I do not want to take anything away from Senator Lundy. She is a very good rower, an extremely good rower.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What has that got to do with it? Stick to the issues.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I am saying that as a compliment, Senator Lundy. I have enjoyed rowing in a boat with her. She is an extremely good rower, but it is not correct for her then to go on and say that this government lacks a commitment to sport; nor is it correct for Senator Lundy to make the extreme observation that somehow we lack a commitment to the Paralympics, not that there was any evidence to support the assertion but, of course, that was not necessary for the purposes of the debate. This is a debate, and we are talking about debating points on the other side.Let us talk about commitment to sport. Everybody knows that the New South Wales government would be in a real bind were it not for the willingness of this government to step in and plug much of the financial shortfall which is facing the Sydney Olympics. On the Labor Party side at a federal level, the belief is that there should be a blank cheque made payable to the Olympics. The reason they believe there should be a blank cheque made payable to the Olympics is that they do not want anything to rebound on the state Labor government in New South Wales.That is a perfectly valid political position to take. But it is not a valid governmental position to say that there should be a blank cheque to cover any budgetary shortfalls suffered by the Olympics. The fact is that this government has been extremely generous with the New South Wales Olympics. It has been extremely generous both in cash and in kind contributions to making sure that the Olympics is successful.The federal government, neither when my colleagues on the other side of the chamber occupied the treasury bench nor now, has never been the guarantor of the Olympics. Underlying all of the arguments that you have heard from Senator Lundy is the assumption—it is a quiet assumption, but it is still there and was running all the way through her speech—that the federal government should be the guarantor of the Olympics and, more importantly, that it should be the guarantor of the political fortunes of the New South Wales Labor government. That is what they are really asking us to do: to be the guarantor of the fortunes of the New South Wales Labor government. This government has no intention of bailing out the Labor Party's mismanagement in New South Wales.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Hear, hear! A good point.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Ellison, a minister of the Crown, has interjected that that is a very good point. It is a good point because he, unlike some of the people on the other side of the chamber, understands that we have an obligation to all of the taxpayers of Australia; our obligation is to the people of Australia as a whole and not to some factional coalition in New South Wales. That is just good government, but it is good government that irks the New South Wales Labor Party and irks their Labor colleagues in Canberra because blood is thicker than water, and it is certainly thicker than money when it comes to the Labor Party. I do not think it is correct for Senator Lundy to make some of the accusations she has made.In relation to the Paralympics, she is totally wrong to suggest that this government is not committed to Paralympic sport. Senator Lundy has done a good job of talking about Paralympics, but she has not had any real involvement with Paralympics. She has not had any real involvement with Paralympic sport. Quite frankly, you get to the point where you wonder why these constant bleatings have to come over and over and over again, and it is just a simple matter—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Here we are going to have another spurious point of order because there is going to be no point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator O'Chee!7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I believe I have been misrepresented in the Senate.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—You cannot do it now; do it later.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—You can't do it now.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will come to order. It happens that I am in the chair and I will make the decision on the basis of either the advice of the Clerk or what I know the standing orders to be. In this case, I have to say there is no point of order. Senator Lundy, you have a right under the standing orders to make a personal explanation if you feel you have been misrepresented. I call Senator O'Chee.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—A very good ruling too, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am sorry that I jumped the gun. You had it perfectly under control. Senator Lundy, however, did not have it under control because, yet again, she came forward and made all sorts of spurious allegations about this government's commitment to the Paralympics.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You're wrong about my having no involvement, because I have had a long history of involvement. You are talking off the cuff—unresearched.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Now she wants to scream and yell and rant and rave across the chamber. She had her chance to have her say and she was heard in absolute silence.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is also in the standing orders to direct your remarks through the chair.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—As I say, Mr Acting Deputy President, she was heard in absolute silence. Now she needs to carry on, yelling and screaming across the chamber. The point is this: this government is committed to ensuring that every athlete gets an opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. One only has to look at the government's gold medal disability program to see the commitment this government made to ensuring that there is money there to raise the issue of disabilities generally and how they affect people in sport. That was an initiative of this coalition government. That gold medal disability access program was not something the Labor Party had. They never had a program like that. It was a program which was put together by the former minister, Warwick Smith, and a very good program.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—So good he lost his seat.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Schacht sees everything in terms of crude politics and whether Mr Smith won his seat or did not win his seat. It had nothing to do with the electoral outcome in Bass. But this is an interesting point because the Labor Party do not care whether a program is good or bad. The only thing that interests the Labor Party is how many seats they win. They could not care less about morality. They could not care less about what is right or what is wrong or what is good or what is bad. The only thing that matters to the Labor Party, as you see from Senator Schacht's interjection, is how many seats they won. That is all that interests them. They are not interested in whether the government does something good. They are not interested in whether this is a good program. They are not interested in the fact that this is something they never did in government. They are not interested in any of that. They are solely interested in whether Mr Smith won or lost his seat.We are interested in doing good things for the Australian community. It goes beyond the crudity of the politics that you see on the other side of the chamber. It goes beyond crude politics because what we are talking about is doing good things. Our commitment through the gold medal disability access program is very, very clear. There can be no hedging, fudging, misleading or obfuscation. This is a program they never had when they were in government. We put it in place when we got into government. That is the difference between the two. I say that our commitment to Paralympic sport should be judged on that. That is a very, very clear point.While I am on the subject of Paralympic sport, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the people who are involved in Paralympic sport. Some of them happen to be very close friends of mine. For example, Hamish McDonald is a great guy and Anton Flavell is another excellent athlete. I share Senator Lundy's concern that sometimes these people do not get the recognition in the general community that they ought to get. When you have athletes who are as talented as this, they ought to get more publicity. They ought to get more public recognition.The government works very hard, but at the end of the day the media chooses who are going to be our athletic heroes. That is not something I can influence, no matter how much I believe that people like Hamish or Anton or Lisa Llorens should have more public recognition. No matter how much I believe it, it is not going to change the public perception unless the media is willing to change it. Just because Paralympic athletes have a low public recognition factor, it is not the fault of the government; it is in fact the fault of the media. I believe the media should accept some of their responsibility. They are slowly doing so. The fact that athletes like Neil Fuller and Louise Sauvage get some public exposure is excellent, is good, and it ought to happen.I make one other observation about Paralympic sport: let us accept Paralympians for their dedication as athletes. Rather than saying, `They have all these terrible burdens,' why don't we say, `They train as hard as able-bodied athletes and they deserve the same recognition'? They deserve not special recognition but the same recognition. That I think is the real point about the Paralympics. The great thing about our Paralympians is that, when you go to the AIS and to any of the training venues where they train, the thing you have to observe is that they train like everybody else. It is not that they train specially; they train like everybody else.It may be that people like Hamish McDonald, for example, who can do dips with a 45-kilo weight hanging off his waist, have extraordinary ability, extraordinary talent. I do not know any able-bodied athlete who can do dips with 45 kilos hanging off his waist. The point to make is: they train like everybody else. That is why they deserve recognition, not special recognition, not pity. They deserve our recognition and respect because of the talent and commitment they have, which is shared with the able-bodied athletic community as well. That is my view anyway.The second matter that Senator Lundy raised in this motion today was that of republicanism. Let me make it very clear: we believe that the head of government in this case should open the Olympics. There is a reason why the head of government should open the Olympics: the Queen does not want to open the Olympics. Then you have a simple choice. Should it be the head of government or should it be the Governor-General? It is interesting to note that the view that the Prime Minister should open the Olympics is shared—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—It's a disgrace.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Lundy interjects from other than her seat. That view is not just held by this government but is shared by the New South Wales Labor Minister for the Olympics, Mr Michael Knight. As Senator Ellison notes, Mr Knight agreed with the proposition that—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No. He wants the President of Australia to open. You are a liar. You are lying.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, I ask you to withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I withdraw, but I raise a point of order. Senator O'Chee is deliberately misleading the Senate. He did not point out that Mr Knight has said that they want the President of the Australian Republic to open the Olympic Games.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There was no point of order. If Senator Schacht had not so rudely interrupted, I was going to say that it was Mr Knight's view that the Prime Minister should open the Olympics if the Constitution remained unchanged. Senator Schacht cannot help himself. He has to interject. He has to yell. He has to scream across the chamber. He always does it. The tragic thing, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that the quality of the interjection never gets any better. It is the view of Mr Michael Knight, the New South Wales Labor government's Minister for the Olympics, that if the Constitution remains unchanged the Prime Minister, as head of government, should open the games. That is very clear.Those on the other side of the chamber, however, want to somehow change all this. One of the most spurious reasons I can think of for wanting to change our Constitution to make this place a republic is that we are going to have the Olympics and therefore we should become a republic to celebrate the fact that we are going to have an Olympics. What do we do if we get the Olympics in another 20 or 30 years time? Change back to a constitutional monarchy to celebrate it again? Of course not. The Olympics is a great thing but, at the end of the day, it is a set of games. I love sport, but sport is just sport. Sport is not a reason to change the Constitution. I would hope that the collective intellect of the Australian Republican Movement could come up with a better reason for wanting to change the Constitution than that we are going to celebrate the Olympics.The Olympics will last for a couple of weeks, but a republic is forever. For the short-sighted, short-lived and simple-minded notion that we should celebrate the Olympics, they want to change the Constitution. But a republic is forever. The changes they make—the ills they import into the changes in the Constitution—will be with us forever, for a long time after the Olympics are gone, after people have ceased to remember the great feats of heroism, the great failures or whatever happens at the Olympics. Long after those things have ceased to be part of the popular consciousness, long after the Olympic heroes have passed away, we will still be left with their constitutional folly—the folly that we should change the Constitution simply because of the Olympics.There have been all sorts of ridiculous arguments trotted out by the republicans. One of the best, and I think Senator Ellison will appreciate this one, laughable reasons why we should have a republic was to become more like our Asian neighbours and be better accepted in Asia. That is one of the most absurd propositions that has ever come forward. But, interestingly enough, that was never a proposition they made whenever they went to Japan. They never said to the Japanese Prime Minister, `Oh, by the way, we want you to know that our domestic constitutional policy is to change to a republic to be more like you,' because Japan is a constitutional monarchy.In fact, if you look around the eastern Pacific area, there are as many constitutional monarchies and protectorates of constitutional monarchies as there are republics. If you asked me to make a choice as to where I would prefer to live, I would prefer to live in some of those constitutional monarchies rather than in some of those republics. If you asked me if I would prefer to live, for example, in the constitutional monarchy of Japan or the Republic of Indonesia, I know where there is better protection for the rights of the individual—it is in the constitutional monarchy of Japan. But by becoming a republic we do not become more or less like the rest of Asia. We do not become more or less like any of our Asian neighbours. Yet this was some of the absurd argument we heard being trotted out by the Australian Republican Movement.What I point out to the republican movement is simply this: they should show us how becoming a republic makes Australia a better democracy. The bottom line is that they cannot, because by becoming a republic you immediately politicise the head of state if the head of state is directly elected. If he or she is directly elected, they have to go to the people with a platform and there is politics in it. Any time people stand for election, be it for the president of a republic or the president of a tiddlywinks club, there is going to be politics in it.One of the flaws of the Republican Movement's proposal is that they take the highest office in the land, the unifying office of the land—that is, the role of the Queen's representative—rip it apart and replace it with a republican model where half the people in the country are working politically to undermine the head of state. That, they think, is good, smart and intelligent politics. I say that it is morally and intellectually moribund to foist that sort of nonsense on the people of Australia.Do we want to have in Australia in the future a repeat of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal? Do we want to see the highest office in this country, if we become a republic, debased and dragged through the mud in some absurd scandal about who happened to be sleeping or otherwise entertaining the president? That is what they would do. In a political system where the head of state is popularly elected, half the people will be trying desperately hard to drag that sort of filth out into the public domain. That is what they would do.Consider this other factor: you cannot become a popularly elected president without having a party political machine backing you. Suppose, for example, we had a Liberal or National Party president and a Liberal or National Party government and the government did something wrong. What is the probability that the president would sack the government? Very, very small, because the president would owe their party allegiance to the government.Let us assume you take the other route. The other route is to say, `Look, we're going to have not a popularly elected president but an appointed president.' That is not making the country any more democratic and it does not better protect the people from the parliament. The role of the Governor-General is to protect the people from the parliament so that, in the event of a constitutional crisis, the Governor-General sacks all members of parliament and calls a fresh election and lets the people have their say.Nothing in the idea of an appointed president makes that more likely, but the model that the Constitutional Convention threw up was one where the Prime Minister of the day could sack the Governor-General at any time, without any reason, without any trial and without any cause. Does that add to the stability of the government of Australia? The answer is no. It in fact adds to weakness and instability, yet that is what they want to foist upon us, that is what their argument is all about and that is why they are wrong. (Time expired)16:30:004600Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thought I would begin my contribution by reminding the Senate what we are debating today. After listening to that rave from Senator O'Chee—and I think we now understand why the electors of Queensland had the good sense to decide that after 1 July he should not grace this place—you might be under a misapprehension that a very different issue is before the Senate. We are debating the question:That the Senate notes the inconsistency in the view of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that it would be inappropriate for a non-Australian to open the Olympic Games, yet appropriate for a non-Australian to remain as Head of State.Let me commence my contribution by saying that the Labor Party's view on this issue of who should open the Olympic Games has been quite clear. It is a simple one. It is guided by the fact that members of the Australian Labor Party both at a parliamentary and an organisational level unanimously advocate an Australian republic. It is a policy that is enshrined in the Labor Party's platform.If a president is installed soon after the republican referendum paves the way for constitutional change then the president should open the Olympic Games. But there may not be enough time for such an inauguration to follow a resounding yes vote in a referendum, so as far as the Labor Party is concerned the fall back position should be, and I think this would be the view of all republicans, that without a president the Prime Minister of the day should open the Olympic Games. That is a very clear position. We are republicans. If there is no president then an Australian should open the Olympic Games. Her Majesty the Queen should not open the Olympic Games in Sydney in the year 2000. People may be astonished about this, but in relation to this situation we actually agree with the Prime Minister.You would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that as a senator one receives a great deal of correspondence from constituents. I do not normally come into the Senate chamber to read into the Hansard record correspondence I receive. I am going to make an exception on this occasion. It is not a long letter. I am going to read the first paragraph of one of the very many letters I receive and respond to as a senator representing the state of New South Wales. It is a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, after the last election by a constituent in Sydney. He has indicated that he did not receive a response even though he went through his local Liberal member of parliament. This is what the letter says:Dear Prime MinisterCongratulations on your re-election. I often say to my children that if John Howard can become Prime Minister, anyone can.I thought that is a very interesting letter to have received and an interesting sentiment that many Australians would embrace.But today we are looking at what John Howard's position is on the monarchy. There seems to be a real conflict between his stated aim of a no vote in the republican referendum and this burning ambition he has to open the Olympic Games in Sydney. If there is one issue that really demonstrates the hypocrisy of John Howard and the hypocrisy which underlies so many actions of this government it is his appropriation of the job, the task, to open the Olympic Games in Sydney.We now have John Howard continually undermining the republican referendum. What about this ill-judged, inadequate and overwritten preamble that he penned recently? It is so embarrassing to Australians. He backs the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. He stirs up the Direct Election Republicans as much as he possibly can. He is attempting to retain the Queen as Australia's head of state.I noticed today a high priority wire story that says:Prime Minister John Howard today signalled that he would scrap the idea of a Constitutional preamble altogether if his draft version was voted down in the Senate.John Howard is saying, `Hang consultation, don't worry about what the other 18 million Australians might think.' If he does not get his own miserable petty little way he is not going to cop any preamble at all. That is the way John Howard and the Liberals do business.But the same John Howard, the same Prime Minister, is perfectly happy—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I understand the passion of the moment, but do you think that at some stage in the rest of Senator Faulkner's time he could actually use the Prime Minister's proper title as he is required to under standing orders? For the last six minutes he has studiously avoided addressing the Prime Minister in the proper fashion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—I am sure Senator Faulkner is aware of the point you make.10000Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Prime Minister Howard is perfectly happy to hijack the Queen's role when it suits him and his politi cal purposes, because he knows Australians will not be impressed if Her Majesty the Queen opens Australia's Olympic Games. It seems to me that we have quite a similar situation to that of the Senate chamber, where, as I have said on many occasions, Senator Colston has stolen a Labor vote. On this occasion, it is Mr Howard who has stolen the Queen's role at the Sydney Olympic Games. I think that if Mr Howard was serious about being a monarchist, he would invite the Queen to open the Games. But there seems to be a significant dose of hypocrisy here in the actions of the Prime Minister. Mr Howard tells anybody who wants to listen that, when he was a mere shadow minister, he put his view on the record that the prime minister of the day should open the Olympics. He will add that at that time it could have been anybody—it could have been Dr Hewson or Mr Keating or somebody else who could have been Prime Minister in the year 2000. I think that is a classic spin from Mr Howard on this issue.Mr Howard always had only one political objective, and that was to become Prime Minister of Australia. He never had a clue what he would do when he actually won the title, but he was always absolutely obsessed with becoming Prime Minister. I think he had a vision of himself as the monarchist Prime Minister opening the Olympic Games in Sydney. I suppose we could say that he has a similar sort of vision to that of Sir Robert Menzies—what would you expect from Sir Robert Menzies' heir? Mr Howard says that he is the most conservative leader that Australians have ever had. To be fair, I think you can say that if Mr Menzies was Australian Prime Minister at this time he would probably have ensured that it was the Queen up there on the podium and not the Australian Prime Minister who was opening the Olympic Games.But, you see, this is the difference: Sir Robert Menzies was actually faithful to his own ideas. He genuinely believed in fulfilling his monarchist principles. He was faithful to the Crown. Mr Howard, on the other hand, is a monarchist when it suits his political objectives. I am sure Senator Schacht would agree with me that you would never have seen Sir Robert Menzies rudely shoving the Queen off the podium at the Sydney 2000 Games. That would have been a very unedifying display from Sir Robert and I expect we would never have seen it. Sir Robert Menzies, of course, believed utterly in the place of the monarchy in the Constitution of Australia. In 1956, when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister, we had His Royal Highness Prince Phillip open the Games. For all the snivelling cant that we are so used to from Mr Howard, I never describe him as a monarchist these days; I always describe him as a Howardist. After all, he really is an opportunist through and through. He is a monarchist to the second last ditch, basically. If he can be a monarchist and also get on the podium to open the Olympic Games, that is fine by him.I notice that Dame Rachel Cleland today has come out to absolutely bag the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, which may come as a surprise to many old-fashioned Menzies-era Liberals. I have heard of an ABC item which indicates that the Prime Minister has been accused of lacking vision for Australia. And this criticism has been made by 93-year-old Dame Rachel Cleland who, of course, is one of the Liberal Party's longest-serving members and widow of Sir Donald Cleland, who helped establish the party. She has a crack at all the major political parties, because she thinks they are out of touch, but she says the Liberal Party appears most backward. Dame Rachel makes the point that the Liberal Party is a far cry from the one that her husband helped create. Let me quote Dame Rachel today about the Liberal Party:It was alive, vigorous, forward looking, looking into the future, quite different from what it is now.What a condemnation of Mr Howard and the Liberal Party in 1999 from one of its great stalwarts! It is important to see how Mr Howard has managed to get himself into this situation of insisting on opening the Olympic Games. It is worth looking at the history of Olympic funding by the Commonwealth. In 1995, the then Labor government set the ball rolling with capital grants of $150 million to prepare the Homebush site, grants to training programs and the Olympic athlete program of $60 million, with a further commitment of Commonwealth money as the year 2000 approached. No-one in the Labor government had the hide to ask for the job of opening the Olympics. The Labor government attached no strings. The Games had been won by Sydney and Labor recognised that the Commonwealth had a responsibility to chip in with funding to get the infrastructure in place for the Games. It is a national responsibility when you hold the Games in Australia. In opposition Mr Howard of course promised to uphold every Olympic commitment that was made by the Labor government—every one.But when the Howard government took office, Mr Howard asked his tourism and Olympics minister, Andrew Thomson, to write to the new South Wales government with a list of demands. In return for handing over the funds already committed by Labor, the Commonwealth wanted blocks of tickets for guests, corporate boxes in the main stadium and in the superdome and a mooring for an Incat hydrofoil at Pier 7 in Pyrmont for a business hospitality centre, and they demanded that the Prime Minister open the games. Then those demands, of course, were sent to the New South Wales government in early 1998. Mr Howard's own department was responsible for the negotiations. In other words, what the Liberal government did was tie Commonwealth funding to a decision that Mr Howard open the games—Mr Howard puffing himself up with all his pomposity and bombast on the podium so all Australians can be embarrassed in the international arena when they see him. No funding from the Commonwealth unless Mr Howard opened the Olympic Games.Of course, that is the problem, and that is how this decision was relayed to New South Wales—no negotiation, no discussion, no consultation; just a threat from the Prime Minister. We know it was not an official cabinet decision, because I asked Senator Hill whether the Prime Minister had the support of his colleagues in relation to his demand that had been placed on the New South Wales government. Senator Hill, of course, in answer to my question said this:To use the word `demand' is to somewhat overstate the position, but certainly the view that the Prime Minister of the day is the most appropriate person to open the games is one that is supported by the cabinet.He said that it was not an official cabinet decision but had the unanimous support of ministers. I bet it was pretty embarrassing to all the cabinet ministers also to put their names and the cabinet's name to such an act of brazen hypocrisy on the part of Mr Howard.And, of course, Mr Howard instructed that an official write to the New South Wales government and SOCOG, and he simply did this: he used millions of dollars of Commonwealth money, millions of dollars of public money, to lever himself up onto the podium at the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The Prime Minister of Australia has even removed the value of the blocks of tickets from the federal funding and, instead of providing $32 million to New South Wales for games services, as put in the 1997 appropriations bill, he has subtracted $1.2 million for that total. I do not know how tickets for federal ministers and, no doubt, Liberal Party flunkeys and supporters are defined as `funding for games services', but we will measure this at a later stage.So a lot of money is being poured into this podium to give what I believe is a small-minded, miserable, poll-driven Prime Minister his brief moment of glory at the Sydney Olympics. I do not how much money it will take to jazz up the podium to make the Prime Minister look statesmanlike—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Probably about a 10-foot box to stand on.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Maybe so, Senator Schacht. A lot of people will be watching this on television sets around the world. There will be Mr Howard, standing—you are probably right—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I will be listening to Roy and HG .5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You will be listening to Roy and HG , but I tell you what, Senator Forshaw, he probably will be standing on a box to give himself a bit of temporary stature. People will ask all over the world, `Who on earth is that?' They will say, `I cannot believe that this guy is Australia's head of state.' And they will be right. He will not be Australia's head of state. The head of state, of course, is Queen Elizabeth II, and Mr Howard wants to make sure that she remains Australia's head of state. That is the sort of vision we have from this Prime Minister and from this government. Do not ever forget that Olympic motto, `faster, higher, stronger'. What is it now—`self-interest, hypocrisy, cant'? It has been redefined by Mr Howard and the federal Liberals.I think that if Mr Howard was true to his publicly stated commitment to the monarchy and was true to his word, then he would graciously invite the Queen to open the games. We do not want the Queen to open the games; we want an Australian to open the games. We want an Australian head of state to open the games. We want an Australian president to open the games. In the event that that is not the case, we do want the Prime Minister to open the games, but not a hypocritical, miserable, small-minded Prime Minister like the one we have.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What do you object to?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I ask that those insults, which are quite clearly unparliamentary, be withdrawn.UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Senator Faulkner, I think the use of the words `hypocritical' and `small-minded' might be in breach of the standing orders.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Are asking me to withdraw them? Small-minded is not unparliamentary.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—`Hypocritical' has been asked to be withdrawn in the past.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You asked me to withdraw `small-minded' and `hypocritical'. I am happy to withdraw `hypocritical'.16:51:004603Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I rise to support the motion of general business today and to endorse the excellent contribution of our leader, Senator Faulkner. There is no doubt that this Prime Minister is at the least inconsistent in his views when it comes to the issue of the opening of the games and the future head of state of Australia. One could even go so far as to mention the word `hypocrisy', but we are not allowed to do that.In the absence of there being an Australian head of state at the time of the opening of the Olympic Games, I support the proposal that the Prime Minister open the games. I do so on the basis that that is the best alternative available and likely to be available at the time. It is the best alternative to the actual Australian head of state, namely, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, herself opening the games.We all know that the normal procedure—indeed, it has been the procedure, as I understand it, at every Olympics of the modern era—is for the head of state of the country of the host city to open the games. But interestingly enough, for the Olympic Games that will herald in the new millennium—the Sydney Olympics in 2000—that we in this country have the great honour to host, we have had to face this issue: who can we get to open our games? We were not able, apparently, to follow the tradition of the head of state opening our games. Why? Because whilst the Prime Minister personally—and publicly, as he has stated—strongly supports the maintenance of the current situation that our head of state is whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, nevertheless he knows that it would be totally unacceptable for a foreign head of state to open the Olympic Games in Sydney next year. He knows that that would be the signal to the Australian people and to the world that, when it comes to hosting the Olympic Games, we can put on the best show on earth but we have to get a foreign citizen and foreign head of state to open the games on behalf all Australians and all the athletes assembled.The very fact that we are having this debate here this afternoon demonstrates the inconsistency in the Prime Minister's position on the republic. If we now had our own head of state—an Australian citizen as the head of state—this issue would simply not have arisen. No matter how much I listen and how hard I try to understand the arguments of people like Senator O'Chee and other monarchists, including the Prime Minister, I cannot understand how they can say to the Australian people, `None of you is good enough to be the head of state of this great nation.' Apparently not one person out of 18 million Australians can qualify, according to our Prime Minister, to be the head of state. Rather, according to the Prime Minister, we have to rely upon a foreign country 20,000 kilometres away to determine who our head of state is. And further, we shall accept as our head of state and should continue to accept as our head of state whoever, on the basis of the accident of birth and the system of hereditary monarchy, becomes a future king or queen of England. We in this country apparently are not good enough, according to the Prime Minister.Yet the Prime Minister believes that when it comes to the opening of the games, he is good enough to undertake that solemn task. He can push the Queen aside. This is not a gentle tap on the back to guide her into her seat. This is to push the Queen out of the road and take on the task himself of opening the Olympic Games, one of the most significant events in the history of this country. It really is a case of `Wham, bam but no thank you, ma'am.'The Prime Minister's inconsistency when it comes to putting his own personal glory and his own ego before tradition extends into other areas of this debate. Let us look at his proposed preamble. The Prime Minister said that he would draft a preamble, and he has done so with the assistance of some people—but he ignored the assistance of Les Murray when it came to all of the content of that preamble, and imposed his own will—and he has released that. But he has made it very clear that his is the preamble that we have to vote upon. He has made it clear that he will not accept or even listen to the views of the Senate. This is the same Prime Minister who, back on 8 June 1995, when responding to the proposal of Paul Keating, the then Prime Minister, to move towards an Australian head of state, said:The great problem with the approach outlined by the Prime Minister last night is that he will not give you, the Australian people, the referendum question, that is the referendum option that you want. He will pass—that is, Mr Keating—through the parliament without your involvement the referendum proposal that he and he alone wants. He will then demand that you answer his question at a national referendum. Our approach is quite different. Our approach is to involve all of the Australian people at the beginning, the middle and the end of the process. Our approach includes all Australians. Our approach is to allow you to help decide the kind of Constitution the Australian people want for their future, not the kind of Constitution the current Prime Minister wants for your future. Our approach is to allow the people of Australia to decide not only the question and the options but also fundamentally the referendum itself.What noble, pious words from the then Leader of the Opposition, our now Prime Minister Mr Howard! But those sentiments have been ignored. They have been thrown out when it comes to this issue of the preamble. Because, as I said, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we have to cop his preamble—his convoluted, disjointed, uninspiring piece of doggerel. No-one else can proffer a suggestion, and he will ignore the views of the Senate when that matter comes on for debate in this chamber. If we do not agree with his proposal, then he will say, `I'm sorry folks, but you won't get a vote after all.'Of course, what the Prime Minister really wants with that attitude is to scuttle the preamble, to scuttle the referendum and to retain the existing Constitution and the existing foreign head of state. He wants to retain the preamble as it is currently worded in the Constitution. It reads:WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established: And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—That is what the Prime Minister would like to continue to have in our constitution. As some of you know, I have been a student of English literature and I love English history, but it is a nonsense to suggest that we should retain a constitution that has as its preamble those historical relics. In my view it is a nonsense to suggest that we are not independent enough, not good enough as a nation, to have one of our own citizens as our head of state.John Howard is big on tradition; he said so. But when there is a bit of personal glory to be gained, when he can appear on the world stage, on TV, watched by billions of people around the world, then tradition flies out the window. As Senator Faulkner said, he will not mind standing up there on the podium, or whatever else he is standing on, soaking in the glory and no doubt thinking to himself that there are a few hundred million people out there who think he is the head of state. That is why he let it be known, I believe, that he wanted SOCOG to call on him to open the Games. It seems that for this occasion he can ignore the Constitution; he can ignore the fact that the Queen is our head of state and that the Governor-General is her representative.I note that the Prime Minister, in another somewhat sneaky manoeuvre, has invited the Queen to visit Australia. I think it is later this year or early next year that she is planning to come. I don't have any problem with that. I am not so sure that people regard such royal visits as all that relevant any more, but that is fine. We have visits from foreign heads of state and leaders from time to time. We have them visiting this parliament and the Prime Minister hosts a lunch for them. What always strikes you when you go to one of these functions for a visiting head of state or leader of another country? At the start of the proceedings our Prime Minister gets up and toasts the head of state of the visiting representative of the other country and then that person gets up and toasts our head of state. Who does that person toast? It is the Queen.You should see the looks on the faces of the people assembled in this, the Australian Parliament House, in this great building, the symbol of real democracy and representation of the people. You should see the looks on the faces of even the diehard monarchists opposite. They cringe every time they see that. That should no longer happen.Whilst the Prime Minister has invited the Queen to visit Australia, I don't think he has invited her to come to the Olympics. We know that she is not coming to the Olympics. There will be plenty of heads of state from other countries visiting the Olympics, I would imagine, but not the Queen of England. And why not? It might be a bit embarrassing if she is there cheering on the British athletes rather than the Australians.In my remaining minutes I turn to some of the other inconsistencies that surround this debate about a republic. The arguments of Senator O'Chee and other monarchists both in the parliament and in the ACM, the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, are riddled with inconsistencies. For instance, they put up arguments like, `The Queen is the Queen of Australia and therefore that makes her a different entity from the Queen of England,' and, `We don't need to change our Constitution because our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.' This is a spurious proposition. She is, by act of parliament, the Queen of Australia but she is still the Queen, the monarch, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—She is the Queen of Australia only when she is in Australia.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That is true. Senator Schacht reminds me—only when she is in Australia. But the Constitution retains the provision that the head of state of this country is the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, her heirs and successors. Under the current constitutional arrangements, whoever her heir or successor is will become our head of state.Another inconsistent argument that is put up by the monarchists to try to divert people from looking at the real question—the real question being should we or should we not have an Australian as our head of state—is that the Governor-General is really the head of state. I don't know how many times I have heard spokespersons for the monarchists argue that the Queen is the head of state and we should not change it because we have really got the best of all worlds; we have got a foreigner who does not live here and therefore we do not have any problems. Then they go to the proposal that she is the Queen of Australia. They even argue, `Well, no, the Governor-General is really the head of state.' They cannot put forward a logical, consistent argument, because there isn't one.But even if it were to be the case that the Governor-General was the real head of state of this country, then why not make it absolutely official? Why don't the monarchists argue that we should get rid of the fiction in the Constitution so that it reflects what they claim is really the case? The reason they do not put that argument is because it is a spurious argument. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the true legal position. I think one of the most spurious and, indeed, deceitful arguments put forward by those who seek to oppose an Australian becoming our head of state is the argument that we have a constitutional monarchy, that we have a stable system of democracy and that we should not change it because, if we do, chaos might follow. Our stable system of government in Australia is due very much to our democracy, to the fact that we are an island continent and do not share land borders with other countries and to the fact that we have never suffered the problem of invasion—though the Aboriginal people would argue otherwise. But, most importantly, our stability is, I believe, due to the inherent character of the Australian people. It is not something that was bequeathed to us by the British monarchy. It is a nonsense to suggest that constitutional monarchies are good governments and are always stable and that republics represent the road to unrest and chaos.Senator O'Chee—I heard his remarks—said that you politicise the office when you have a president of a republic. Senator O'Chee should go back and look at a bit of recent English history. The greatest political crisis this century in the United Kingdom occurred about 60 years ago when Prince Edward was the successor to the throne of the United Kingdom. But what happened? There was a huge political and constitutional crisis because he wanted to marry a divorced woman. The parliament effectively said at that time, `You cannot remain the king of England,' because it was believed to contravene the Act of Settlement of 1701. Prince Edward, the Duke of Windsor, was forced to abdicate. He could not continue his rightful succession to the throne. A huge political and constitutional crisis went on in England at the time. What happened here in Australia? We sat back, waiting, and wondering: `Who are they going to appoint as our future head of state?' Eventually, the British parliament, the politicians, forced Prince Edward, the Duke of Windsor, to give up his right to the throne and his brother was appointed as King George VI of England. The current Queen is the daughter of King George VI. So let us not have any of this nonsense that somehow constitutional monarchies are above politics and better than republics.Anyone who knows anything about English constitutional history knows that parliamentary democracy in England came about as a result of overcoming the tyrannies of monarchs—you have only got to look at what happened to Charles I to know that. Indeed, it is parliament that is supreme in that country. But in this country we are reliant upon whoever becomes the king or queen of England to be our head of state. That is, I believe, a situation that we should no longer have to accept. As the eyes of the world and the eyes of all Australians are upon us next year at the Olympics, we should be able to show the world that we are truly and completely Australian and that all Australians can aspire to be our head of state. (Time expired)17:11:004607Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Might I say at the outset that Labor, in bringing forward this motion for debate today, really demonstrate what a pathetic opposition they have become. We are debating a motion of which Senator Carr gave notice as a general business notice of motion:That the Senate notes the inconsistency in the view of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that it would be inappropriate for a non-Australian to open the Olympic Games, yet appropriate for a non-Australian to remain as Head of State.I note that although Senator Carr gave notice of that motion, it was left to Senator Lundy to move the motion, so it shows how much faith Senator Carr had in his own motion.The fact that Labor has brought forward this motion today demonstrates loud and clear just what a first-class job the Howard government is doing across its whole range of responsibilities. It demonstrates loud and clear that the Labor opposition is so bereft of real and substantial issues on any shortcomings on the part of the government which it can attack that it is reduced to attempting to fabricate an issue out of something that clearly is not an issue. The issues that it is trying to fabricate relate to, firstly, the Prime Minister's personal view on the most appropriate constitutional arrangements for Australia and, secondly, the Prime Minister's personal view on who should open the year 2000 Olympic Games being held in Sydney. Not only is the Labor Party showing that it is completely bereft of ideas and issues by bringing forward this motion but, in trying to beat up this matter into an issue today, it is showing how out of touch with the country at large it has become.Where has the community demonstrated its concern about these matters? As far as the issue of the Constitution is concerned, about half the community, if not more, agrees with the Prime Minister's position on our present constitutional arrangements. I suspect that by the end of the year, when we hold a referendum, well over half the community will agree that our present constitutional arrangements, which have served Australia well for some 98 years, are quite adequate and quite appropriate for our future.As far as the opening of the Olympic Games is concerned, the only references I can find to a concern about the Prime Minister opening these games are the comments of a couple of radio talk show hosts. There is no widespread concern in the community about the Prime Minister's position on either of these issues. This is clearly a Labor attempt to beat up an issue because, in regard to the matters which are of primary concern to the people of Australia and for which the government has responsibility, the government is clearly and demonstrably doing an outstanding job.Let us not beat about the bush. When this government came to office a little over three years ago, the federal government finances were in an absolute mess. We faced an annual budget deficit of $10 billion—a $10 billion black hole. Yet, in less than three years in office, we managed to convert that deficit into a budget surplus by a combination of sound financial management and government restraint. As a consequence of that, and as a consequence of the government's generally sound financial management, the government has inflation at not an all-time low but certainly the lowest level it has been in the last 30 years. That was reinforced by the most recent inflation figures released yesterday. For the last three months, we have had an inflation rate of virtually zero. For the last 12 months it was something of the order of 1.2 per cent. It is an extraordinarily low rate of inflation, given the history of the last decade or so. Again, it is runs on the board for the present government.As with inflation, interest rates are the lowest they have been for 30 years. Low interest rates are a benefit to home buyers. They reduce the monthly repayments for housing, leaving more money in people's pockets to spend on other goods and services. That has a flow-on benefit to the economy. That is why the economy has grown strongly over the last year or two. We have had record low interest rates in the last 30 years. We have seen unemployment falling as a consequence of that. As a consequence of increased demand and economic growth, unemployment is falling. As I mentioned earlier, we have achieved a budget surplus.It is a very sound financial position for the government and a very sound position for our economy. I remind the Senate that low interest rates benefit not only home buyers but also business, and in particular small busines ses—most of which operate on overdrafts or borrowings to sustain the activity of their businesses and, therefore, generate a real benefit and real opportunities for growth when they have low interest rates. Again, there are benefits to the economy. That, in turn, has meant that the rate of growth in Australia has been the highest of many of the OECD countries with which we have compared ourselves for the last year or two. In particular, this rate of growth has been sustained in the face of the Asian economic crisis.Under the Labor Party, we became increasingly dependent on Asia as our main source of export income. Yet, firstly, because of the sound financial management of this government, and, secondly, because we have directed our trade activities on a broader front than just Asia, we have maintained a level of economic activity and a level of exports that have sustained that underlying strong economic growth and sheltered the Australian community from the outcomes of the Asian economic crisis. In particular, it has provided jobs growth rather than increased unemployment, which might have been the logical outcome of succumbing to those Asian economic problems.In contrast to these policy initiatives, we find that the Labor Party is a complete policy free zone. Over the last 12 months or so, a couple of Labor parliamentarians have sought to generate some policy debate within the Labor Party, recognising that unless they have soundly thought through policies that they can put to the Australian people they have absolutely no chance of winning a future election. Mark Latham is one of those. The outcome for those individuals who have sought to facilitate a policy debate in the Labor Party is that they have been sent to coventry. They are not wanted in the Labor Party because the Labor Party is a complete policy free zone. It has no policies.As I said at the outset, not only does the Labor Party have no policies; it has no issue on which to attack the government. The lack of issues is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they are putting up this motion today as a general business debate. It has also been generated in the Senate over the last couple of weeks and in the Senate since we began sitting after the last election. We have seen desperate attempts by the Labor Party to beat up into issues of concern issues that are not really there at all and certainly are not matters of concern to the wider community. We have seen them yet again try to crank up a scare campaign in this chamber on the GST as we debate the new tax system and the much needed tax reform legislation. They have not only beaten up a scare campaign; they have filibustered in that debate. Last night we saw from a senior Labor senator, Senator Ray, an exhibition of relevance deprivation syndrome perhaps even more evident than that which—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I can take so much of this but I—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—What is your point of order?ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—I will come to that, Senator Boswell. It is relevance, Mr Acting Deputy President. Is it sufficient in your view that a speaker can spend 10 seconds on a motion and then spend the rest of the time on the supposed sins of the opposition?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—No, Senator Chapman, I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of order because the debate has ranged far and wide. Therefore, there is no point of order.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Thank you for your support on that point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. If I had the chance to speak to it, I would have made exactly that point. The excerpts of the debate that I have heard have ranged far and wide, far beyond the narrow specifics of the motion before the chair. This matter that I am raising is relevant, because one must look at the motive that the Labor Party have in putting forward this motion. As I say, the motive is that they have nothing else to debate. There are no issues out there of real concern to the community. That is why the Labor Party are trying to fabricate an issue of this nature.As I was saying, we had this example of Senator Ray last night exhibiting even greater relevance deprivation syndrome than his colleague in the other place Mr Gareth Evans exhibited as a shadow minister. I guess Senator Ray, having been a senior and somewhat respected minister in the previous Labor government, would be experiencing that on the backbench. His relevance deprivation syndrome is such that his concerns these days are limited to what, where and with whom ministers in this government eat. That is the limit of the issues he is able to raise.We have also seen question time in the Senate become an absolute non-event, with the Labor opposition being unable to raise issues of substance. Day after day we sit here as questions of no substance whatsoever are asked of government ministers, one after the other.As I say, the reason for this motion being put forward today is that the opposition has absolutely no issues with which to attack the government; it has no policies to put before the Australian people to compare with the sound policies that the government has initiated and with which it has achieved results. So let us understand the reason for this motion having been put forward.I turn to the issues that the opposition is trying to fabricate here: the issue of an Australian president replacing our present constitutional monarch, and the issue of who should open the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000. These issues really are quite unrelated. However, the Prime Minister's views on the Australian Constitution are well known. He has always expressed, and expressed strongly, his personal view that Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy. That is a view I share very strongly with him. Both the Prime Minster and I share the view that the constitutional monarchy has served Australia well for the 97 or 98 years since Federation and the Commonwealth government being established, that it does provide stability, that it has been able to deal with the occasional constitutional crisis that has arisen and that seeking to fiddle with the Constitution in the way proposed leaves it open to all sorts of unknown, and perhaps unintended, consequences. So, as I say, the Prime Minister's views on this issue are well known, and they are views that I share.Nevertheless, the Prime Minister initiated a Constitutional Convention last year and accepted its outcome; he also accepted that that outcome would be put to the Australian people in a referendum, as it will be in November of this year. He has therefore fulfilled that commitment. That is as it should be. He has made that commitment, and he is fulfilling it. At the end of the day it will be the Australian people, not the Prime Minister, who will determine whether or not we abandon our current constitutional arrangements and establish a republic in Australia, with a president as the head of state rather than our current arrangements. That will be determined by that referendum in November of this year.For that to occur, we have to have not only an overall majority of the Australian people vote in favour of those changes but also a majority of people in a majority of the states to approve amendments to the Constitution. A majority in at least four states will have to support the propositions for our constitutional arrangements to change. Again, that is proper and appropriate because the very foundation of our Federation in Australia is that the smaller states should have weight equal to that of the larger states in determining amendments to our Constitution and should not be dictated to by the larger states. That safety provision is there to ensure that there is general support for any significant changes to our Constitution.The question of constitutional change is being addressed. But even if that referendum votes in favour of a republic for Australia, under the legislation that has been put through this parliament and which goes to the referendum, a president will not be in place prior to January 2001. So, first of all, we need to consider whether there will be a change. Secondly, we need to consider the timing of that change, if there is to be one—and, as I say, it will not occur until 2001. Indeed, unless there are changes to the Constitution, the only option for any organising committees—whether organising the Olympics or any other major events—faced with who to invite to officiate at functions remains the status quo.Many functions and ceremonies take place on a daily basis throughout Australia, and always up for consideration is the appropriateness of who should open or officiate at those functions. Depending on the nature of the occasion, it may be appropriate for a mayor, a state premier, a state governor, a federal minister of the Crown or, indeed, the Governor-General to officiate at those functions; it may be appropriate for the Queen to be invited to do so, or it may be appropriate for the Prime Minister to do so. The fact is that it is the organisers of those functions who generally determine whom they would like to have conduct that opening ceremony.In the case of the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000, the Sydney Olympic organising committee announced on 22 April—that is, only last week—that, should Australia have a president by the time of the games, the president, whether male or female, would be the person to open the games. However, the organising committee also stated very clearly that, if no such presidential office is in place by the time of the games, the Prime Minister will perform this role. As I said a few moments ago, we know for sure that, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum at the end of this year, the president, if we move to that form of Constitution, will not be in place by the time of the Olympic Games; he or she will not be in office until 2001. On that basis, and knowing that to be the case, the Sydney organising committee has made the final decision that it will be the Prime Minister who will open those Olympic Games.The fact that the Sydney organising committee has selected the Prime Minister to be the officiating person underscores the point that these games belong to all Australians. The decision that the organising committee has made on this matter I am sure reflects the opinion of the general public that it is highly appropriate to have the Australian Prime Minister open the Olympic Games.This is not a recent view on the part of the government, which shares the view of the Olympic committee and shares the view of the Australian people. As long ago as when Paul Keating was Prime Minister and John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal and National parties expressed the view that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day to open the Sydney Olympics. It was certainly reinforced by John Howard when he was Leader of the Opposition that, as the most senior and highest profile elected Australian figure, it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to open the Olympic Games.This is not something that the Prime Minister has initiated since becoming Prime Minister to glorify himself in front of an international audience, as some have suggested. It has been a consistent view of the Liberal and National parties for some six or seven years—well before there was any suggestion that John Howard might be Prime Minister or even that a Liberal Party leader might be Prime Minister at the time of the Olympic Games. It has been a consistent view, and it is an appropriate view. So let us have none of this nonsense that this has happened in the last year or two now that John Howard is the Prime Minister and that he has sought this apparent glory for himself.As I said at the outset, there is no issue here at all. It is an attempted beat-up on the part of the Labor Party because they currently have no issues that are of concern to the general Australian community to raise in the Senate. The people are satisfied with the very good government they are getting from the Liberal and National Party coalition and the leadership that Prime Minister John Howard is providing.With regard to the attempt to beat up this issue, the two issues—the constitutional position and the position of who should open the Olympic Games in Sydney in the year 2000—are quite unrelated. They are separate issues. Indeed, the views of the Prime Minister on these matters are private. He is not expressing the view of the government with regard to the Constitution. As I said, on behalf of the government, he has initiated a constitutional referendum which will give the people of Australia the opportunity to determine our future constitutional arrangements. Similarly, his view that the Prime Minister should open the games is a view that he has held for a long time. It is a view that the Liberal and National parties have held for a long time and have publicly expressed, irrespective of who the particular holder of that office might be at the time the games came around.So let us have none of the nonsense that has been put up in this motion. It does not stand scrutiny. It is an attempt to beat up an issue that does not exist. It is about time the Labor Party got a hold of some real issues, but there are none. They should at least do some solid policy work and look for some policies that they could put to the Australian people that might give them some chance of garnering some support, which they sadly lack at the moment.17:32:004611Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The question here is whether there is inconsistency between the Prime Minister's view that we should remain a monarchy and his view that he, as elected Prime Minister, should open the Olympic Games, which, under the rules of the International Olympic Committee, are opened by the head of state. Clearly, there is an inconsistency.If one believes that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is the proper head of state, one should be pursuing a request for Queen Elizabeth to be there at the Olympic Games to read out the 13 or 15 words which are the required opening speech. The International Olympic Committee must have learnt from experience to give the heads of state no latitude but to read out a simple opening statement of two or three sentences. That does the job without having a captive audience held to a long speech from a politician who cannot help herself or himself. Whichever way this turns out, it will be a very short, succinct opening speech, and I do not think that is going to worry Australians too much.The opportunity to open the games was too great for the Prime Minister, and he sees himself in that position, on that podium, on the night next year in Sydney delivering those 15 words. I am not unduly fussed about that. But, seeing we are in transition between being a monarchy and becoming a republic, I think the proper thing would have been for the head of state in Australia, the Queen's representative, the Governor-General, to read that speech.Towards the end of his speech, Senator Chapman, who was the last speaker, said that in the last six or seven years there had been general agreement between the government and the opposition that events such as the Olympics ought to be opened by the Prime Minister, the elected head of government of the day. This is a very significant innovation. I do not think Australians will agree with that. Either we have a head of state or we do not have a head of state. I think Australians would have been terrifically proud to have the non-political head of state, Sir William Deane, opening the Olympics next year. I think it would have given everybody a very warm feeling.There is the rough potential that some people will see an elected Prime Minister as not being their cup of tea when the time comes. I am not unduly worried about that. It will be a great event. Australians will be riveted by it, and I think they will be much more interested in the pyrotechnics and the display under the floodlights at that magnificent new stadium than they will be in the 15 seconds or so in which the Prime Minister delivers the prewritten opening words.We are moving inevitably and ineluctably to becoming a republic where the functions of the current Governor-General in general terms will become those of the elected head of state, the president. Therefore, in this transition period, it is logical that the person to open the Olympics is the Governor-General. It is a missed opportunity, and I think the Prime Minister would have been seen as being more generally committed to the idea of Australia moving on had he requested that the Governor-General perform this function. He wants to undertake it himself. I do not think it is a matter of enormous moment. I hope that, when the day comes, he gets enjoyment out of reading the opening words, and I am sure Australians will feel terrifically proud and happy about that event taking place.What about the head of state, though? What is going to be the relationship between the Prime Minister and the president when that time comes? I am one of those who are concerned that we are seeing a move towards the prime ministers of the day seeking the advantage of office to not only invade the role of the elected head of state—particularly at ceremonial functions, such as the opening of the Olympics—but control the future presidential office. That is a matter of great concern.In the upcoming referendum, as a consequence of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, we are going to be voting for a president who will be elected by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the two houses of parliament—the Senate and the House of Representatives—after a process of selection and agreement by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a selection panel. What people do not know is that it is not incumbent in this arrangement for there to be a two-thirds majority to dismiss the president. The Prime Minister can simply, by signing a letter of dismissal, dismiss the president summarily. It does not matter how correct or how popular the president has been; if he or she gets the Prime Minister's nose out of joint, the Prime Minister will be able to dismiss the president.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—If you don't like it, vote no.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Boswell, I am a staunch republican. The national meeting of the Australian Greens held a month ago here in Canberra also thought that was not a proper process—that if it requires a two-thirds majority of parliament to appoint the president, it ought to require a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of parliament to dismiss the president. I say to Senator Boswell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I will be moving and fighting very strongly, when we get the opportunity in this place, to tighten up this measure to ensure that is the case.I understand that that intention was put forward in about 1986 when this real debate about the republic in its most recent chapter was set off by the writings of Professor George Winterton, the constitutional specialist. When former Prime Minister Keating set up a commission to look into how the president might be appointed, again it was said it should be a two-thirds majority of parliament to elect the president and a two-thirds majority of parliament to dismiss the president. When the Australian Republican Movement was approaching the debate at the Constitutional Convention, it also thought it should be a two-thirds majority to elect the president and a two-thirds majority to dismiss the president.I am not going to go into the complexities of that Constitutional Convention, but something happened there. Remember that half the representatives at the Constitutional Convention were not elected by the people but were appointees, and a good number were not republicans but were pro monarchy. Whatever they were, out of that Constitutional Convention came the result we have, which is a dramatic change to the safeguards of the office of president and a dramatic increase in the vulnerability and the capture by the Prime Minister of the office of president. I think this is bad for our democracy and this is bad for the prospect of Australia as a republican democracy. I will be fighting very strenuously on behalf of the Greens, not only in this place but in the public arena, to have this altered so that we go back to the manifestly fair and proper process of ensuring that parliament—and not the Prime Minister—is the agent that appoints the president and is able to remove the president.The issue has been raised of what we do if a president takes leave of her or his senses—if, suddenly, a president is putting out some edict that is obviously not a sensible one for Australians. First of all, there is no law to prevent prime ministers going off on a tangent and doing foolish things. But if that is the case, let the Prime Minister have a suspensory opportunity for some days while parliament is recalled, and then parliament can determine whether the president's behaviour can be justified or not. The president would obviously be given an opportunity to account for what she or he is doing, and then parliament would deal with the request from the Prime Minister that this president be dismissed. What we are dealing with here, by the way, is a very, very unusual and unlikely situation, but it worries some people.We can recall parliament within a matter of days in this age of modern, rapid transport and communications. In those circumstances, parliament can be recalled rapidly and can deal with a crisis that has arisen. I think a far worse crisis occurs if we leave it to the Prime Minister, in a period of disagreement with the president, to simply sign a document saying, `You are dismissed.'It is a little worse than that because, in that circumstance, there is no way parliament can reappoint the president, put the president back in office. There is no provision for that under the presidential arrangements that are being put at the referendum in November. What would happen is that the Prime Minister, having dismissed the president, would appoint an interim president and then we would go through the process of having a new round of selections with parliament reappointing somebody by a two-thirds majority.This is totally unsatisfactory. It is wrong. I do not believe Australians would support it. I do not know whether this was put into the arrangement as a means of shaking the confidence of Australians that they were getting a good arrangement for the new head of state. Whatever, it needs ironing out. I hope that all parties listening to this are having a rethink about this matter so that when it does come up in the Senate—presumably just after winter—and when I move the amendment to put things right, there will be support in this place to see that we get it right because I think the current formula is very short of the mark and would not be one that people in Australia would like to see.Yesterday I had the pleasure, together with Mr Gareth Evans and Senator Stott Despoja, of releasing an alternative preamble proposed for the Constitution of Australia. We know that the Prime Minister released his version of the preamble a short while ago. I want to talk about that for a moment. It is my view that the best preamble is one that will come from the people, with maximum consultation. I am aware that there is a very wide range of views in our community and that we have to take all of them into account. But it is also a matter of great symbolism and a great opportunity to reflect the Australia that people hold in their hearts through these few sentences at the front end of our Constitution.I want to make it clear that I have not entered into supporting an alternative from this side of the Senate with a view that it is that or nothing. I do not believe that is a good process. That is why I have been strong in supporting the provision in the letter going out to newspapers about this preamble alternative that the Centennial Constitution Foundation be asked to look at the proposed alternative preamble and at input coming from Australians to the web site, which is being advertised in that letter, to improve it. This preamble is not set in concrete. It is an alternative. It is drawn from the previous input of hundreds of Australians into the work of the Centennial Constitution Foundation. That is a good group of people to be looking at further deliberations on further input from Australians.I personally think we can go a step further and a step better than the Prime Minister's proposal, though it has support from many Australians and though his thinking is obviously very strong in that preamble option. I think a preamble ought to be simple. It ought to be stirring. It ought to reflect the Australia that people have a feeling for now. It ought to reflect something of our history and certainly reflect our hope for this great nation as we go into the next century.I want to make it clear that this is not an exclusive bid to topple the Prime Minister's alternative. I have written to the Prime Minister this afternoon expressing that sentiment. I understand that on Adelaide radio station 5AA earlier today the Prime Minister indicated that we may well be looking at there being no preamble because his may not get through the Senate, although he has mooted the possibility of changes. But I seize upon his terminology of common ground, that we ought to be able to find common ground on this. I have written asking him to meet about this to talk about how we do that. I think that is again what the Australian people would want. We as parliamentarians ought to be the conduit for national sentiment in drawing up a preamble—we have to put ethos in front of ego, in short—and not the arbiters of what that shall be.I am very happy with the idea that the Centennial Constitution Foundation, having done a lot of work on this already, be the people who give advice on the final form of that preamble. I hope that all involved—and we are all involved—can give, can concede and can embrace the ideas of others who do not think exactly the same way, so that we do get a preamble that reflects as far as possible that diversity of feeling in Australia, and recognise this: that we all love this country, that we all want to appreciate the symbolism which reflects that love of this nation from whichever place or point of view we might have come.Senator Chapman said earlier that this was a debate taking place which could have better be taken up by more important issues. I want to finish by saying that at lunchtime I was at the press conference which announced the end of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition. This is a representative forum and research organisation for the views of young Australians. It had representation from groups right across the spectrum, from Scouts to YMCA, YWCA and so on—community groups of great diversity in the nation and young people all. Now it is dead because government funding has been withdrawn. I think that is a matter of importance.In particular, we have to draw on the thinking of young Australians—and what a great lot of ideas that have come from them on the preamble—on the direction they see this country needs to take, on their ideas on meeting the problems that they undoubtedly face in this vast, materialist and fearful age, and on how we can overcome the fact that this is the first generation probably in all of human history of youngsters who have been robbed of hope. If we are charged with one duty in our time as elected representatives, it is to put into place the road back to hope for young Australians. I believe that implicitly charges us with the duty to think of future generations and to take into account their welfare in everything we do.It is a very sad thing indeed that the government has cut the ground from under this youth forum at a time when tax concessions are going to strengthen the lobbying ability of groups like the Australian Mining Industry Council, the National Association of Forest Industries and so on in the precincts of Capital Hill. There it is. It is one of those things we will have to fight for a come back on. But I give a word of praise to those young Australians who have taken part in AYPAC and given such advice to the body politic in past times. I will be working as much as I can to see an early reconstitution of that body representing youth.17:52:004615Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—We are debating a Labor motion which reads:That the Senate notes the inconsistency in the view of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that it would be inappropriate for a non-Australian to open the Olympic Games, yet appropriate for a non-Australian to remain as Head of State.I have been a member of the Constitutional Convention, I have listened to a lot of debates on it, and there are many inconsistencies in the republican debate. But they are not to be found in the views of the Prime Minister, nor of the people who really want to defend the present system of government. The inconsistencies are to be found in the ranks of the ALP, who have become fixated by a term which is not even in our Constitution. This very motion is inconsistent.Our Constitution makes no reference to a head of state because, ultimately, the power resides with the people. That is where the National Party wants it to remain—with the people. So we are staunch defenders of the current system of government. Neither are the Olympic Games mentioned in our Constitution. It is up to the nation as a whole through its representatives and its democratic system to make its own decisions about who opens what, who will be toasted at official functions here or there and who will be seated first, second and third. Those are niceties and diplomatic protocols, but they have nothing to do with a debate about how political power is shared and kept in check by popular sovereignty. The Olympics have nothing to do with a debate on constitutional change, except in one instance: if there was a constitutional change to a republic, then the PM could always sack the president, and who is going to open the games then?The Labor Party is confused. Australia is quite independent and able to determine its own way on the games opening without the need for a republican constitution. The focus on and the potential power given to this new constitutional creation of a head of state actually detracts from the fundamental role of the people. Until former Prime Minister Paul Keating turned a dinner party topic into a political red herring to try to divert the country from focusing on the recession it had to have, and for which he has since admitted he was wrong, most Australians had never heard of the term `head of state'. A head of state is a movable feast. It can mean anything to anyone. Senator Carr's version would be very different to Senator Faulkner's idea of a head of state. A head of state might be a dictator, a king, a bishop, a president, a prime minister—even a grand duke. A head of state might have very little power, as in the Irish system, or absolute control, as in the American system. It resists clear definition.I now turn to the two greatest enemies of humankind this century. Hitler referred to himself as a head of state, while Stalin did not. The Soviet Union even had 24 heads of state. I bet they did not all turn up to open the games in Moscow. The point is that all this rhetoric about a head of state obscures the very real and very serious changes which would occur if Australia became a republic. They would not just be surface changes but ones that change the very core of our system of government and the checks and balances we hold so dear in this country and which act against the abuse of power.There are further inconsistencies implied by this motion. Senator Carr supports the proposition that the functions of the Governor-General should be transferred to a president. Somehow in that process the magic wand is waved and the president becomes a head of state, although Senator Carr would argue that the Governor-General never was a head of state. Republicans argue that the president would do the same thing as the Governor-General but that somehow the president gets to be a head of state as well. Strangely, too, the functions of the Queen, who Senator Carr argues is the only head of state currently, are not transferred to the president. I ask Senator Carr: how can the president be a head of state?Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, explains further:The Queen's role in the appointment of the President will in fact be transferred to the politicians collectively in a joint sitting of parliament.Perhaps that would mean that we would all be joint heads of state, from Senator Carr to Senator Brown to myself, because we are then going to have the power. Professor Flint continues:The Queen's role in the dismissal of the President will be transferred to the Prime Minister.Does that mean that the Prime Minister is also part of this many-headed monster that goes by the name of `head of state'? Should the whole parliament turn up to open the Olympic Games? That is just farcical. It just goes to show the fragility of any argument for constitutional change based on the head of state artifice.The inconsistencies of Labor on the republican debate are endless. They have not been able to come up with a decent model over the whole decade this debate has been trundling along but have been pushed into an appearance of life by some white wine socialists. There have been disagreements over the most fundamental issue of the manner of appointing or electing a president, whether by parliament or by popular vote. The first Keating-Turnbull model for a republic would have made Australia like the present fifth French republic—with two powerful competing politicians, the President and the Prime Minister.The second Keating-Turnbull model goes the other way—it does a complete 180 degree turn and makes the president completely vulnerable to the whims of a prime minister, as Senator Brown alluded to. In no other democratic republic is the Prime Minister able to sack the president at any time for any reason, or for no reason, and with no notice or right of appeal, as Senator Brown has pointed out to us. Professor Flint has also stated:A rule change which allows one of the captains to send off the referee when he's about to rule against that team will be recognised as the rort it so clearly is.Under such a scenario, would it be at all correct to describe that powerless president as our head of state, an office that is so under the thumb and in the power of others? Wouldn't it be more correct under those circumstances to denote the Prime Minister as the head of state? (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of general business notices of motion having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard .Leave granted.The remainder of the speech read as follows—In that case, it would be consistent under either a republic or constitutional monarchy for the Prime Minister to open the Olympic Games!But seriously, the Prime Minister has long held the view that the Prime Minister of the day should open any Olympic Games. He has expressed that view long before he became opposition leader, let alone Prime Minister. It is a considered view which has nothing to do with arguments about heads of state or republics. It is not in conflict with the constitution. As a good Constitution does, ours gives us the freedom to determine our own way on these things.As the Prime Minister himself said of his long held view: `I felt that as the most high profile elected Australian figure, the Prime Minister was the appropriate person to do it.' I think most if not all Australians would agree with that view.To attempt to tie that view up with the Prime Minister's known opposition to a republic, is misleading, illogical and like comparing apples with oranges. There is no inconsistency between a Prime Minister opening the games and the existing constitutional system of government. All Labor achieves by this pathetic twisting and misrepresentation of views is to let down the republican cause.Now I know some of my coalition colleagues hold different views to the National Party on the issue of a republic. I do not agree with them but I respect that they sincerely hold these different views. And I feel very sorry for them today because Labor's strategy is obviously to politicise the republic issue. In doing so they put at risk the cross party support required to have the faintest hope of getting the republic referendum passed. So while I am happy for Senator Carr to raise these sorts of issues time and again and give me plenty of opportunity to expose the flaws of the republic, I have to say that he will only do the cause of republicans everywhere a disservice. Is it really a republic which Labor wants—or to score political points?It is rather pitiful that of all the important issues facing us these days, this is all Senator Carr and the opposition can come up with. Come back to the front bench, Senator Ray. Your party needs you. What a waste—sitting up the back in charge of the dirt files. When you could be doing so much to come up with a policy or two and some direction for your party from up the front. All Senator Ray gets to do now is to run guerilla attacks from the mountains of the back bench and pick on some decent National Party ministers only trying to do their job.Documents46174617The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Advisory panel on the marketing in Australia of infant formula—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator West to take note of document agreed to.Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report—No. 52—Elsey land claim no. 132. Motion of Senator Bartlett agreed to.General business orders of the day nos 2-7 relating to government documents were called on but no motion was moved.Bills4617s182Billss1974617Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Senator Eggleston:That the Senate take note of the report. 18:03:004617Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I briefly want to speak to the motion to take note of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on legislation that the government has before the Senate. The Senate is aware that at the moment there is a great deal of concern in the community about this legislation.I want to reiterate that, if the change to the laws proceeds, we will have environmental powerlessness at a national level unseen since before 1972 when Lake Pedder in Tasmania was flooded. At that time the then incoming Prime Minister said that he did not have the constitutional powers to do anything about it although it was against the national interest that such a national heirloom and national park should be flooded for a hydro-electric scheme to produce one-tenth the output of a large mainland power station.If this legislation proceeds we are going to be back in a situation where the federal government gives up its powers to intervene to protect this nation's heritage heirlooms, particularly where they do not have world heritage protection. It is not going to be possible, for example, for a federal minister or Prime Minister to nominate a place in Australia for world heritage listing as required under the provisions of the World Heritage Convention without the assent of the relevant state government, and that means the relevant state premier. So we are going to be in the position where the protection of Australia's heritage is going to be at the whim of a Robin Gray or a Joh Bjelke-Petersen or even a Richard Court or the current Tasmanian Premier, Jim Bacon.Under the provisions of this legislation the Franklin River would have been flooded because the federal government would have been powerless. Under the provisions of this legislation the Daintree rainforest would have been chainsawed down instead of being proclaimed a world heritage area. Under the provisions of this legislation we would not have seen the protection of the Lemonthyme and southern forests of Tasmania. Under the provisions of this legislation we are basically disempowering the federal government. The federal government is basically disempowering itself of responsibility.This is at a time when the federal government and indeed the Labor opposition are moving to dismantle state powers in order to improve the reach of the corporate sector and make it easier for investment into and out of Australia, to get rid of barriers to trade and commerce. At this time it is disempowering itself in its vital need to protect the nation's environment.I might add, it is disempowering itself to be able to act properly to tackle international problems like global warming because the state governments are basically going to be able to obfuscate any federal move to adequately deal with the problem of global warming at a national level.It is rotten legislation. It is a throwback. It has obviously come about from the pressure of the corporate sector—not least the resource extraction industries, such as the woodchip, the mining and the fisheries industries. The input to the committee and the reports from the committee underline the alarm there is about this, in particular amongst the non-government organisations who are fighting for the environment in this country.I have no confidence whatsoever that we are going to see future federal governments use their corporations powers to intervene to prevent maverick corporations from doing the wrong thing by the environment. Prime Minister Bob Hawke briefly entertained that idea back in the mid-1980s but was very quickly disavowed of it through pressure from the corporate sector. We are seeing here a dismantling of environmental powers at the federal level at just the time when they are required because of the raised environmental sensitivity of Australians and because of Australia's obligations to the international community. So it is a matter of extreme importance that the public be made aware that the environment is being let down by the government and in particular by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, who has brought this legislation into this place.It is remarkable that under the Westminster system, where the minister for the environ ment ought to be going into cabinet advocating for environmental powers to meet the aspirations of Australians in this age, he is actually going into cabinet with a document to do away with his own powers and replace them with much lesser powers so that the corporate sector will not have to worry about the environment or the impact of federal intervention because of pressure from the Australian people. It is a matter that needs a great deal of public canvassing. Most of the Australian public are unaware that the minister for the environment, presumably at the behest of the Prime Minister and certainly of the cabinet of this government, is basically handing across environmental powers to the corporate sector. The corporate sector is well aware that they can much more easily—through their sheer wealth, lobbying power, access to legal power and so on—sway state governments than they can sway federal governments having to abide by federal laws. The outcome is a disastrous one for the environment.The Australian Greens, along with environmental groups, are fighting hard to oppose this legislation. We are concerned to see that when it comes into this Senate, it gets a very thorough going through indeed. The Greens are preparing amendments to legislation which should not be here in the first place. We are going to do the job of the minister for the environment for him. He obviously cannot act on behalf of the environment. He obviously does not act on behalf of the environment. He obviously is selling out his portfolio obligations for the environment in cabinet. He would not have this legislation before the Senate were he a responsible advocate for the environment. We are obviously going to have to do his job for him.The problem for us is that most Australians do not know that this insidious and disempowering legislation—which so threatens the Australian environment—is before this place. It is about to come on for debate at any time once the GST legislation goes through or other priorities, such as the budget, are finished. In fact, the minister for the environment has seen that this is No. 3 on the list of 27 or so bills we are to deal with between now and June. I have no doubt that he has looked at the numbers and believes that he can get the support of Senator Harradine and Senator Colston to get this legislation through before 30 June. He knows that he would have no chance of getting it through afterwards. He is going to get a fight. It is going to be a long debate. This legislation is going to be dissected piece by piece, clause by clause, subclause by subclause, when it comes into this Senate. It is far too important to be dismissed.The input to this committee shows how important it is to the people of Australia and their representatives, although it may not be given high priority by the government of the day. I do not know how strongly the Labor opposition, or indeed the Democrats, are going to fight against this or whether they are simply reduced to trying to amend it. The legislation is inherently wrong and should be opposed. That is what we will be doing when it comes before this place—with this report under our arms, because it reflects the fears and the anguish of environmentalists right around the country about this particularly bad piece of legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees461946194619Debate resumed from 22 April, on motion by Senator West:That the Senate(a) in relation to the use of unpublished documents in dissenting reports, adopts the amendment of standing order 37(2) at pages 1 and 2 of the report(b) in relation to the appearance of private witnesses with departmental officers, adopts the views expressed by the committee at page 2 of the report(c) in relation to notices of motion and postponements, adopts as temporary orders ceasing to have effect at the expiration of 30 June 1999 the amendments of standing order 76(1) and 67 at page 4 of the report.Question resolved in the affirmative.4619The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:New Tax System—Select Committee—Main report. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Cook) to take note of report agreed to.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report—Provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. Motion of Senator O'Chee to take note of report agreed to.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report—The effect of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines and communities. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Woodley) to take note of report agreed to.Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Report—Privacy and the private sector: Inquiry into privacy issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator McKiernan) to take note of report agreed to.46194619UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking a variation of the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Allison substitute for Senator Stott Despoja on the Legal and Constitution Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 .Adjournment4619UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Consideration of committee reports and government responses has now concluded. I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.461918:15:004619Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Yesterday the Senate witnessed an extraordinary display from one of this chamber's most respected political strategists and ministerial performers under Labor. It is a very sad thing to see a senator with such a capacity for positive contribution come into this chamber and indulge in an unworthy character assassination of political opponents. Not only did his actions diminish those he specifically targeted; they diminished all of us.Senator Ray's own reputation has suffered. I have frequently considered that his move to the back bench was too soon. I think back a couple of years ago to those heady days when Labor ministers could actually hold their own in this chamber. There was Button, Walsh, Evans, Richardson and Ray. They were Labor's powerful and strong leaders, and they commanded a government and their party.But what we see today is a ramshackle frontbench and a backbench resorting to dirt files, because they are leaderless, rudderless and policyless. I thought it was a waste of time to have Senator Ray sitting on the back bench with all of that talent. Now I am going to revise that assessment. It has been known, of course, that after a period of glory as a minister senators and members return to opposition and become embittered. We have all seen that on both sides—angry, grumpy old men who cannot let go and have to be continually negative. That should not happen to such a person as Senator Ray, and I find it sad and regrettable.But what have these attacks on the National Party achieved? They have set in train, inevitably, a series of counterattacks. It has been revealed by senators on this side of the chamber that Labor ministers did exactly the same sorts of things as did National Party ministers, because the guidelines have not changed. Already, senators who have suffered in the past from these kinds of attacks have been brought into this episode as well. Will we not ever learn? What has been achieved but a further battering of the image of parliamentarians? The price is very high, and the reward is short-term political gain that will inevitably rebound. The public react to the headlines one day and then do not get to read the real facts a week later which show that there was nothing sinister after all.Just a couple of nights ago a person rang me up, and I understand that he also rang Senator Gibbs. The call was quite threatening in nature, and the caller was clearly under the impression that we were all a bunch of so-and-sos. There will always be some who abuse the system, and a need to improve accountability is there. But I firmly reject that all too prevalent view that we are all here to sit around and do nothing but waste the taxpayers' money. I never thought that of Senator Ray, and I hope Senator Ray does not think that of me either. But I say to Senator Ray, `Your actions are only helping to foster that general perception out in the wider community. Your actions only serve to help radical groups like One Nation get into parliament.' These kinds of attacks simply reinforce the prejudices which get the David Oldfields of this world elected. By all means, expose the bad and the ugly where it can reasonably be said to exist, but do not be selective. Make sure it is really there, and that the facts live up to your own subjective assessment. Senator Ray did not follow the unwritten rule in this place that when you are about to be highly critical of someone you at least have the courtesy to let them know, as I have with Senator Ray tonight.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—There weren't any senators involved.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—But you could have rung their offices.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—They are in the Reps. They can't sit here.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—They cannot sit here, but they can turn on the television and listen. I have contacted two of the three ministers' offices involved, and they say that there was no such contact. So there was no way that they could defend themselves, as they had the right to do, or have me come in and defend them.There is also the curious feature of this attack, that it is aimed fairly and squarely at the National Party. I really would like to know why that is. Senator Ray told the Senate yesterday that it was because previous experience has told us that they are the ones who get their snouts in the trough, first up and the biggest. What previous experience? That is simply highly offensive nonsense that says more about the speaker than it does about the subject.There are pages of material which show how Labor ministers did exactly the same thing. It presumably was not wrong then, so why is it being painted as some kind of heinous sin now? Ministers are entitled now, as then, to cover the cost of expenses incurred providing hospitality on appropriate occasions in the course of official business. Ministers do not have credit cards or accounts, and the department determines legitimate expenditure in accordance with Labor's guidelines. Labor ministers claimed expenses for taking out ACTU members, CPSU members, John Laws, media representatives, peak industry groups and official and departmental staff at restaurants around the country. I have got the documents, but I am not going to name them.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You can't name me, Ron.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I cannot name you, and I am not intending to name you. But when I say `ACTU' it would be the same as the National Party taking out their electorate council.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We didn't criticise you for taking out business leaders.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—But what I am saying is: if you criticise us, take the plank out of your own eye. There were even claims for events hosted by a minister's staff but not attended at all by any ministers. What does Senator Ray say to that? He would say a lot if it was the National Party but he said nothing of his own side. It is the nature of this place that when you are attacked you have got to fight back or you will be considered a soft target the next time. But it is a pandora's box that gets opened and all sorts of people get hurt, as we have seen. I am not going to name the people that we have information on. I do not think it warrants it. I do not think they did anything particularly wrong. I think the ACTU thing was a bit off. But, for goodness sake, let us bury this now. If there are any capital offences, present them, but do not put one side against the other side when they both do the same things. I consider taking someone out to lunch is not a heinous offence.462118:23:004621Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I thank Senator Boswell for notifying me in advance, but I do not accept his criticism that I should have notified National ministers in the House of Representatives. That is not the tradition. The material that I had yesterday came to me very late. It came to me after 146 days wait. It came to me during question time. Only today did I get Mr Anderson's meal expenses. I will be equally critical of anyone on the Labor Party side that transgresses in this way as I will be of the Nationals. Senator Abetz said earlier today that I deleted that information. I simply did not have it.It is curious, though, that this government, against all convention and without permission, can go back and dig into Labor files and add that to answers to questions that were not asked. But that is fair enough. They have done that with three ministers and they have hardly laid a glove on any of the three ministers. But I want to say this, for once and the only time I will probably ever say it. Senator Boswell asks what I am doing on the back bench. Am I embittered? I do not think I am embittered. The moment I am I want to leave this place. Because you are right, Senator Boswell—embittered people have no role to play here.But we do have a role in scrutiny. Some of us are allocated that role. Others create policy. Others do a whole range of things. But some of us are allocated the role of scrutiny, which is totally appropriate to this parliament, because from that scrutiny and from that adversarial system better government comes. I am not on the front bench for one reason: I do not want to be a minister again. The only people that should sit on an opposition front bench are those that want to be ministers. We have many people on our side of politics that would like to be a minister again. Frankly, I enjoyed being a minister. I enjoyed the nine years. I enjoyed the eight years in cabinet. I probably enjoyed spending $60 billion in six years as defence minister. But for me that was enough. I do not actually aspire to do it again. I am also a believer that, having been elected by the people of Victoria, I should serve my term unless health or something else intervenes. I do not ask for a job outside politics. I live off my backbench salary and I am quite satisfied to do so. You do not have to actually serve on the front bench—as you would probably realise, not having been a minister—to actually fulfil a role in politics. One of those roles must be scrutiny.What I have said about this expense issue is two separate issues. You did not mention one of them but I am going to mention it again tonight. I will get to that in a moment. The other issue is: what is legitimate expenditure for a department to pick up the entertainment costs of a minister? I spelt out the criteria yesterday. Official functions are fine. There are plenty of those. Tim Fischer put a whole range of those before us yesterday although he did not fully answer the question. There was a second, grey area which you mentioned—ACTU officials, business people, all those sorts of ones. I think they are grey areas. It is something I never did. I never stuck the taxpayer with that. But I can understand they may fall within guidelines. But I say here again that the guidelines do not cover personal staff, departmental officers and journalists. So, if people transgress on your side or have transgressed on our side, we should say they are transgressors. I said last night they were not rorters but I said they were outside the guidelines. If people on our side of politics were outside the guidelines, then they can take the scrutiny.But why did you not raise that at the time and see if they were outside the guidelines? We are now checking this government and I say those people and those occasions are outside the guidelines. Have you seen any minister come in and table the guidelines, Senator Boswell? Of course they have not. Why not? The ministerial guidelines is a secret document, apparently. It is not publicly available. But I went back to the old one. I assume they have not changed much. I read the guidelines. It simply does not fit into these guidelines. We were given $10,000 as ministers, eventually rolled into salary because of the substantiation rules, to fit these very circumstances. It is already in their salary package for those specific circumstances when you want to take a journalist, staff member, visiting businessmen or trade union officials out. You do not need to send the bill back to the department in those circumstances.But the real problem in this was not really that. The real problem is that the question asked for the names of the individuals that were the beneficiaries of the taxpayers' funds. The taxpayers are entitled to know that. But what happens? The first time the question is asked, by Senator O'Brien, all the names are given. When I put questions on notice about five ministers the replies are deliberately delayed. They go over to the minister's office and they are rejected. Then the chiefs of staff—and you can make inquiries: they are your people—get together and say, `We've got to put a stop to this. We'll eliminate the names on that list and we'll put in broad generic descriptions,' not even giving the numbers in some cases. Where is the justification for that? If I had FOIed them it would, firstly, have cost the government an absolute fortune to answer the questions and, secondly, they would have had to give me the names of the individuals. Because it is illegal if those very chiefs of staff try to direct the FOI officer in the department as to those particular matters.Then the senator says: `Why the NATs? They don't have any track record.' I don't want to go over the old ground too much. I still say that the greatest act of thievery I have ever seen in this parliament by anyone was a National Party minister and shadow minister claiming $68,000 travel allowance in Melbourne, where he lived for heaven's sake—tax free! I have never claimed a cent in Melbourne tax free, but $68,000 worth!YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Your Prime Minister was doing it out here.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are saying our Prime Minister was doing it? When? As Prime Minister? The answer is no, he didn't do it as Prime Minister at all. One of the key points of Senator Boswell's speech—and I have to agree with him on something—was that the department determines whether the payments are okay or not. I agree. That helps the ministers out a bit. It gives them a bit of clearance that these payments were ticked off by the department. That does give them a fair bit of clearance on both sides of politics. But those departmental secretaries should not have done that. I can just imagine what my old mandarin Tony Ayres would have said if I had sent him over a bill for $140 because I had taken someone out to the Ottoman. Being a Brunswick born boy, he would have got that bill, he would have brought it over to the office, he would have inserted it in an orifice and said: `That's what you can do with that bill, Minister.' So there is a weakness here, but not only on the ministerial side; there is also a weakness on the administrative side. Those bills should not have been ticked.But what does Senator Boswell say to the Sharp claim for $1,790 for his own home entertainment? Does he really think that is a proper use of taxpayers' money? It is not for industry representatives. It is for businessmen. Aren't these just the locals whom Sharp has decided to put on a meal for? What do you say about him at the Cowra function, which clearly is a veterans' function, yet the Department of Transport gets stuck with the bill? What do you say about that Southern Highlands function that is in there, which is clearly nothing to do with the Transport portfolio, yet that department got stuck with the entertainment expenses? I have said it before and I will say it again: this is not a rort, and I have never claimed it to be a rort. What I have claimed it to be is an infringement of the guidelines in which departmental secretaries are complicitous in as much as they have ticked the bills on both sides of politics.But the real tragedy of this, the real thing that brought this to a head, is that I found out about the conspiracy because before I got the answers. I found out about the chiefs-of-staff meeting. I was told: `When you get those answers, you will no longer see the names of the individuals. All you will get to see is their broad description.' And sure enough, yesterday and today as the five sets of answers floated in, that is exactly what we got. As always in these things, the greater crime is not in the commission of what occurred but in the cover-up. Senator Boswell has a responsibility as Leader of the National Party to explain why that cover-up occurred, why your senior staffers were a part of it and whether any of your ministers knew about it. You might get on your feet another time and answer those questions.462318:33:004623Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—As the Chair of the Senate Legislation Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, I would like to make some remarks about Arthur Boyd. Arthur Boyd was a great Australian and a great Australian artist. His death last Sunday takes from us a former Australian of the Year, a leading philanthropist and a world renowned painter, sculptor and designer. Arthur Boyd was born in 1920 at Murrumbeena in Victoria and was a member of one of Australia's greatest artistic families. He left school at age 14 and briefly attended art classes at the National Gallery School in Melbourne. However, as he commented later in life, what he observed on the way to and from his art classes was of more use to him as an artist than the classes were themselves. Surroundings were an important influence throughout the life of Arthur Boyd. In 1936 he went to live with his grandfather at Rosebud in the Mornington Peninsula and completed works for his first exhibition. The Mornington Peninsula landscapes were reflected in these paintings exhibited in Melbourne in 1937.Arthur Boyd served in the Australian Army during the Second World War and his work of this period reflects his experience of the war. In an enterprising adventure after the war, Arthur ran a pottery at Murrumbeena in conjunction with his brother-in-law, John Perceval. But in 1949 Arthur Boyd became a full-time painter and continued his theme of landscapes while also diversifying to murals on religious themes in the house of his uncle, Martin Boyd, near Berwick in Victoria.His public commissions commenced with a ceramic sculpture for the 1956 Olympic Swimming Pool in Melbourne and the more famous Great Hall Tapestry in this building, which was woven by the Victorian Weavers Trust and based on a 1984 landscape painting by Arthur Boyd, which today is on exhibition near the post office on the first floor of the parliament building. In 1958 Boyd's work, along with that of another great Australian artist, Arthur Streeton, was chosen to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale.As I have mentioned, surroundings were an important influence on the work of Arthur Boyd. From Port Phillip Bay, the Mornington Peninsula, Central Australia, London, Italy, Tuscany and the Shoalhaven region of the south coast of New South Wales, surroundings and life experiences influenced both the mediums and the styles in which Boyd painted. Landscape remains Boyd's most recognisable style, but during the later years of his life Boyd's work became more figurative in style and diverse in medium. His art diversified as far as graphics and as a designer for the ballet and theatre sets of the Australian Ballet and various theatre companies. One of Boyd's most famous series of paintings was entitled The Half-caste Bride, which was based on a visit he made to Central Australia in 1958. It has been said that this trip was a turning point in Boyd's life with the artist thereafter concentrating on more figurative works rather than the landscapes which he had done prior to this. Writing in the Sun-Herald today, Jeffrey Makin describes Boyd's work as a narrative. He said:Boyd was an intuitive painter. His painting was always sensual, tactile, which can be traced back to his beginnings at Murrumbeena in his father's pottery studio.In the late 1950s, Boyd and his wife, Yvonne Lenney, and family moved to England. In 1960, Boyd had his first exhibition in London, and Boyd and his family moved between London, Australia and Italy from the 1960s. He did not return to Australia until the 1970s, when he took up a fellowship in creative art at the Australian National University.Boyd's list of public accolades do not come much better. He was Australian of the Year in 1995 and Irish Australian of the Year in 1988. He was awarded an OBE in 1970, an AO in 1979 and promoted to AC in 1992. He was Australia Post's first living legend to appear on postage stamps in 1999. As well as being a prominent artist, as I said, Boyd was a great philanthropist. I will list some of the bodies which benefited from his generosity. The National Gallery of Australia has been a recipient of many thousands of pieces from Boyd's personal collection. In another act of great kindness and foresight, in 1993 the Boyd family donated their property in the Shoalhaven, `Bundanon', to the people of Australia. And this estate now provides an artist in residence program, it houses an educational centre and a theatre, and a concert hall is being built. In conclusion, I would like to again quote Jeffrey Makin who, writing in the Herald Sun on 28 April, said:The Boyd legend is indelibly a Melbourne success story. Together with Sydney Nolan, he took the Australian landscape to London and almost single handedly created an international market for Australian art where there wasn't one.So, on behalf of the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, I would like to offer condolences to the Boyd family, and commend Arthur Boyd for his kind, philanthropic nature and for his enormous contribution to the development of Australian art both domestically and internationally.462418:40:004624Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise in the adjournment debate to speak about my recent visit as shadow minister for veterans' affairs on behalf of the opposition, the parliament of Australia and the people of Australia to Gallipoli and other places where Australian soldiers, airmen and naval personnel have served in wars of this century.As part of my study tour, I visited and had talks with overseas representatives dealing with veterans' issues in Greece, Egypt, Great Britain and Turkey. I also visited Macedonia to look at the terrible refugee situation there, and tomorrow I hope to have an opportunity to speak about that experience. In each of those places—Athens, El Alamein and Battersea Park—where there are memorials to Australian service men and women who died in the world wars of this century I had the opportunity to lay a wreath on behalf of the parliament and the people of Australia. In each of those Commonwealth war graves cemeteries there are, unfortunately, large numbers of Australians buried.I want to congratulate the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the excellent way they maintain those graves, very often in difficult conditions. At El Alamein you could not see a more hostile desert environment, including those that we are used to in outback Australia. It is very well maintained and it is very moving to be there and see the many hundreds of Australian graves. The graves were mainly those of our soldiers who were killed at the famous battle of El Alamein that was a turning point in the Second World War. In Athens there is a Commonwealth war graves cemetery—now surrounded by suburban Athens—where several hundred Australians who were killed defending Greece and Crete in 1941 are buried. I attended those war graves and laid a wreath, accompanied by the head of the Greek veterans' affairs organisation. At Battersea Park there is a simple memorial to the 5,500 young Australian aircrew from Bomber Command who died in the Second World War, and again I was able to lay a wreath.As far as the veterans' affairs part of my study tour overseas was concerned, the highlight was being able to be at Gallipoli last weekend on the 84th anniversary of the landing of the original Anzacs at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915. One cannot go there but be moved by being at the original place which is so redolent of Australian history. The places that I had heard of and read about in the history books—not only Anzac Cove but Lone Pine, Courtney's Post, Quinn's Post and The Nek—are all there in such a close area. To see the area where those original Anzacs fought and died in such large numbers in such a small area is quite overwhelming. Again, the war graves and the memorials to our soldiers who were killed fighting there are very well kept and are very moving in themselves.I also want to say that the ceremony itself was moving in that the speeches of the Governor-General, Sir William Dean, both at the dawn service at Anzac Cove and at Lone Pine at midday, were, I think, two of the best speeches I have heard commemorating the dead who served our country. I draw the attention of all Australians to Sir William's words, which I think are very much his own words, written and expressed by himself. They are a great peroration in honour of not only the soldiers who died there but also what it means to Australia.To be at Anzac Cove as the dawn broke at 5.30 in the morning was most moving. As the hills gradually emerged behind, I realised what an extraordinary task it was for those Australian soldiers to come ashore and be faced with those very steep cliffs and gullies in that dawn light. Then, as the dawn came up, I was moved by the sight of 5,000 or 6,000 people cramped on that Anzac Cove site. The most moving thing of all was that 80 per cent of the people there were under the age of 30. Many of them had slept the night amongst the graves of the Australian soldiers buried on Anzac Cove. They wanted to make sure they were there for the dawn service. Apparently in recent times one Turkish commentator said, `Isn't it a wonderful thing that these young Australians have come back so many generations later and have laid down and slept amongst the graves of their forebears who fought here?' The Turkish people saw that as a tribute, even though there is concern about the damage it may do to the cemetery.Again, at Lone Pine there must have been 6,000 or 7,000 people at the service. You could see they were Australians because they were dressed very informally in T-shirts and jeans, wearing sunglasses and hats, but all were greatly moved by the ceremony and treated it with great respect. I had the opportunity to talk with many of them and walk with them up the road past Johnston's Jolly, Quinn's Post, Courtney's Post, The Nek, up to Chunuk Bair for the New Zealand service. All of them had made an absolute effort to come once in their life to Anzac Cove and Gallipoli to be there because that was part of being an Australian.I made some notes on the plane coming back. These were the sorts of things these young Australians said about the reasons they were there: `It is a pilgrimage which you have to make.' `This is where Australia as a nation really began.' `I just had to come to this place which is so important to Australia.' `You cannot be an Australian unless you visit and see for yourself what these soldiers did here.' `I cannot explain why, but I know that I just had to come here once in my life.' `My great-grandfather served in World War I. I owed it to him and his family to be here.' `It is overwhelming to see where so many ordinary Australians fought and died.' Those were the remarks made by these young Australians. To me and to all of us, we know that the commemoration of the Anzac spirit clearly is not going to die when so many young Australians are willing to make that effort to be there and to understand what makes it so important to them as an Australian.The reason I went on my own personal pilgrimage or odyssey is that on the morning of 25 April 1915 my grandfather, Karl Timcke, from the 10th battalion in South Australia, landed on the beach at Gallipoli. He lasted about a day before he was severely wounded. He lay for two days in no-man's-land before he was found and brought home on the first hospital ship with a very severe head wound. He was demobilised from the Army, and in 1916-17 he was a founding member of the Returned Services League in South Australia and served on the committee. Unfortunately, his wounds meant that he became ill and he died in 1924, leaving behind a young family, one of whom was my mother.I am the first member of the family to return to Gallipoli to see where my grandfather was badly wounded. I have to say that it was a very moving experience personally; very emotional. I hope that from now on every succeeding generation of my family takes the opportunity to go to Gallipoli to see where their forebear, my grandfather, served and bled, and to realise that the blood from which they are descended has been spilt on that sacred soil at Gallipoli. I hope all the succeeding generations of my descendants get that opportunity.My mother is in her 79th year. When I return home on Friday I will be able to take back to her some stones that I gathered from the very beach on which her father, my grandfather, landed as a small memento of what Anzac Cove and Gallipoli mean to my family but, above all else, to all Australians.18:50:004626Senate adjourned at 6.50 p.m.Documents46264626The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 1-3 of 1999.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 6/99.Answers to Questions on Notice4627The following answers to questions were circulated:4627(Question No. 306)3064627Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 3 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the Minister, not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to October 3 1998.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees for each dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; and (e) what was the venue.4627Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department met the costs of 47 functions hosted by the Minister as detailed in the attached table. The information provided covers functions which Mr Fischer hosted in Australia and where the Department met the full cost or a substantial portion of the cost of the function. It does not include functions which Mr Fischer attended as a guest only nor does it include functions attended by the Minister while overseas since that information is not readily available in consolidated form and could only be obtained at significant cost.The attached table reflects the demanding trade agenda with which Mr Fischer has had to deal since 1996, and the extensive representations necessary to protect and promote Australia's trade interests. This includes hosting key international meetings such as the Cairns Group of agricultural traders of which Australia is the chair, which are critically important to our trade and economic interests.DETAILS OF 47 FUNCTIONS HOSTED BY MR FISCHER AND PAID FOR BY DFAT2 March 1996 to 3 October 1998WhenPurposeAttendeesCost ($A)Venue20/3/96Luncheon for Philip Burdon, New Zealand Trade Minister14: New Zealand and Australian officials, ministerial adviser.670.50Parliament House21/3/96Trade Afternoon Tea (New Zealand) 15: New Zealand and Australian officials, ministerial adviser56.50Parliament House27/5/96Foreign Heads of Mission Reception hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade220: Foreign Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial adviser.3,355.00Mural Hall, Parliament House28/5/96Crawford Fund dinner17: Crawford Fund members, ministerial adviser.714.35Parliament House30/05/96Trade Policy Advisory Council Meeting—working dinner29: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.1,251.50Parliament House 31/5/96Trade Policy Advisory Council (TPAC) Meeting—working lunch37: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.1,215.00Parliament House4/7/96Luncheon for South American Heads of Mission12: South American Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial advisers.434.55Parliament House 7/8/96Trade Policy Advisory Council Meeting—working breakfast37: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.1,069.20NSW Trade and Investment Conference Centre, Sydney16/10/96Luncheon for Asian & New Zealand Heads of Mission9: Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial advisers.335.30Parliament House17/10/96Saudi Arabia Joint Ministerial Commission (breakfast, morning tea, lunch, cocktail) 140-190: Saudi Arabian and Australian Ministers, officials and business representatives, ministerial adviser.10,437.35Old Parliament House30/10/96Trade Policy Advisory Council Meeting—working lunch32: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.816.00Parliament House31/10/96Luncheon for Singaporean Ministers10: Singaporean and Australian Ministers and officials, ministerial adviser.423.00R G Casey Building13/2/97Mr Fischer's address on trade policy to the National Student Leadership Forum—refreshments.25: Student, officials, ministerial adviser.82.75Parliament House 21/2/97Trade Policy Advisory Council meeting—working lunch30: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.325.35NSW Parliament, Sydney26/2/97Australia-Thai Ministerial Commission Luncheon (hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade)120: Australian and Thai ministers, officials and business people, Australia-Thai Business Council members, academics, ministerial adviser.2,059.20Hyatt Hotel, Canberra27/2/97Australia-Thai Ministerial Commission Luncheon (hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade) 80: Australian and Thai Ministers, officials, business people, ministerial adviser.335.25The Lobby Restaurant, Canberra16/4/97Luncheon for New Zealand Trade Minister12: New Zealand and Australian Government Ministers and officials, ministerial adviser.512.25Parliament House21/4/97Cocktail Reception in honour of Diplomatic Corps, hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade244 : Diplomatic Corps, Ministers, Shadow Ministers, representatives from business and academia, DFAT, Austrade and other Commonwealth Department senior officials, ministerial adviser.2,052.07Mural Hall, Parliament House28/4/97Luncheon for Arab Heads of Mission12: Arab Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial advisers.480.00Parliament House17/6/97Luncheon for Chilean MPs13: Chilean MPs, Chilean HOM, Australian MPs, business representatives, officials, ministerial adviser.525.75Parliament House18/6/97Market Access Working Group of the Supermarket to Asia Council—refreshments22: Working Group members from peak industry bodies, business, officials, ministerial adviser.64.50Parliament House 14/7/97 Launch of Documents on Australian Foreign Policy: The Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce 1957 hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade60: Japanese Minister for International Trade & Industry and entourage; Japanese diplomats and consular officials; leading Japanese businessmen; descendants of significant contributors to the Agreement; people associated with documents in the book; academics and representatives of organisations interested in Japan; representatives of Australian businesses with Japanese interests; members of the Editorial Advisory Board for Documents on Australian Foreign Policy; media; DFAT officials, ministerial adviser.1,505.76(DFAT's) International Media Centre, Sydney15/7/97Signing Ceremony for Agricultural Research & Development Memorandum of Understanding with Israel—morning tea.31: Representatives from Embassy of Israel, Israel Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry and CSIRO plus officials and ministerial advisers.100.25Parliament House11/08/97Luncheon for Foreign Heads of Mission18: Foreign Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial adviser.861.00R G Casey Building14/8/97Trade Policy Advisory Council meeting—working lunch26: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.647.00Victorian Investment Centre, Melbourne28/8/97Market Access Working Group of the Supermarket to Asia Council—refreshments30: Working Group members from peak industry bodies, business, officials, ministerial adviser.67.75Parliament House2/9/97Australia-India Joint Ministerial Commission function40: Indian Government representatives, Mr Downer, Senator Parer, Business Council and Industry representatives, officials and ministerial advisers.2,060.50Parliament House24/9/97Closer Economic Relations (CER) Ministerial Dinner16: Australian and New Zealand Government Ministers and officials, ministerial adviser.798.15Parliament House22/10/97Official opening of the Currawong Childcare Centre in the R G Casey Building30: DFAT officials, staff, parents and children, ministerial adviser.132.00Currawong Childcare Centre, R G Casey Building12/11/97Foreign Heads of Mission Lunch12: Foreign Heads of Mission, officials, ministerial adviser.670.10Parliament House25/11/97Dinner for British Deputy Prime Minister16: Australian ministers, Shadow Minister for Trade, Australian business leaders, British diplomats, ministerial adviser and senior official.1,224.00Parliament House3/12/97Luncheon for visiting Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU) delegation16 : Members of CAFIU delegation, Chinese Ambassador and Counsellor, Australian MPs, officials, ministerial advisers.1,035.00Parliament House4/12/97Trade Policy Advisory Council meeting—lunch59: TPAC members joined by Indonesian media representatives, officials, ministerial adviser.1,788.50Parliament House 21/1/98Visit by US Senators—refreshments22: US Senators, officials, ministerial adviser.64.50Parliament House27/1/98Reception for Australian Head of Mission-designate to Republic of Korea 8: Officials, ministerial advisers.40.00Parliament House13/3/98Trade Policy Advisory Council meeting—working lunch40: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.598.00NSW Parliament, Sydney1/4/98New Zealand Bilateral Meeting—working lunchNew Zealand Trade Minister plus delegation, officials, ministerial advisers.299.85NSW Parliament, Sydney1/4/98Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting—receptionCairns Group ministers, State agriculture ministers, Cairns Group farm leaders, industry representatives; Cairns Group, US, EU and Japanese ambassadors, officials, ministerial adviser.4,377.64 or half the actual cost of function met by Department (other half met by NSW Premier's Dept)Government House, Sydney1/4/98Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting—ministerial dinnerCairns Group ministers.2,761.69Government House, Sydney2/4/98Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting—morning teaCairns Group ministers, ministerial advisers, officials, media.1,375.00Botanic Gardens, Sydney2/4/98Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting—working dinnerCairns Group ministers, officials, ministerial adviser.3,337.89State Parliament, Sydney29/4/98Luncheon for delegates who were to attend the International Conference on Women in Agriculture in Washington (28/6-2/7 1998)18: Delegation members, officials, ministerial adviser.653.00R G Casey Building1/5/98APEC Business Advisory Council Dinner280: APEC Business Council Members (including international members), senior Australian business people and officials, ministerial adviser.9,158.00(co st of reception 27, 000.00 minus 17,842.00 subsidised by ABAC members)Intercontinental Hotel, Sydney2/6/98Cocktail Reception in honour of the Diplomatic Corps, hosted jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade180-200: Diplomatic Corps, Ministers, Shadow Ministers, Business, Academia, DFAT, Austrade and other senior officials, ministerial adviser. 1,543.75Mural Hall, Parliament House5/6/98Trade Policy Advisory Council meeting—working lunch40: TPAC members, officials, ministerial adviser.598.00NSW Parliament, Sydney7/7/98Luncheon for the Advisory Board of the Centre for Middle East and Central Asia Studies.16: Members of the Advisory Board, ministerial adviser.370.90Parliament House 29/7/98 Launch of All the Best—from Australia, the Philippines Integrated Country Promotion presented in November 199880 guests including the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel; Austrade General Manager; Philippines Ambassador; Australia-Philippines Business Council, Queensland and South Australian Government representatives; major sponsors; industry; local Filipino community leaders; media; DFAT and Austrade officials, ministerial adviser.6,675.79DFAT International Media Centre, Sydney4631(Question No. 307)3074631Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 1 December 1998:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the Minister, not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to October 3 1998.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees for each dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; and (e) what was the venue.4631Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The following table sets out the information sought. Excluded are functions associated with formal program activities, such as launches and commemorative activities under the "Australia Remembers" and "Their Service Our Heritage" programs. The total cost of the functions listed is $13,844.92. I have included an equivalent list for the last two Ministers for Veterans' Affairs in the previous Government. The total for these functions is $11,327.35. In some instances, particularly in respect of former Ministers for which diary records have not been consulted, details of specific functions are necessarily incomplete.DatePurposeAttendeesCost ($)Venue9/04/96LunchAMA representatives109.00 Parliament House10/04/96Dinner—South African DelegationSouth African delegation, diplomatic, ex-service and Repatriation Commission representatives + partners (15 attendees)887.00 Hill Station21/05/96Dinner for Journalists3 attendees121.95 Parliament House24/07/96Drinks for DVA Staff DVA staff involved in the Budget32.50 Parliament House1/08/96Lunch Journalist120.00 The Lobby29/08/96Lunch Journalist 120.00 The Ottoman5/09/96Lunch 2 attendees17.80 Board Room Caf, Brisbane 12/09/96Dinner Foreign Diplomatic representative312.40Commonwealth Club13/09/96Working DVA Lunch6 attendees62.00 Parliament House 25/11/96DinnerVeteran representatives, departmental and ministerial staff.270.50 Red Ochre Grill14/02/97Lunch with Service Nurses for Memorial Dedication7 attendees207.95 Parliament House15/02/97Dedication of the Site for the Australian Service Nurses' National Memorial2 ministerial staff.60.00 Royal College of Nursing6/03/97Drinks for DVA StaffStaff from the DVA Commemorative Activities Program190.00 Parliament House26/03/97Drinks for DVA StaffDVA Correspondence Unit staff320.50 Parliament House17/04/97Lunch British veteran + Australian RSL representatives168.00 Parliament House22/04/97Luncheon for Dutch Ambassador2 Dutch Government + 1 DVA representatives 345.95 Commonwealth Club13/05/97Budget Dinner Drinks and DinnerEx-Service Organisation representatives719.50 Parliament House16/05/97ACT RSL Budget BriefingACT RSL representatives114.00 Parliament House5/06/97Drinks for DVA Staff DVA staff involved in the Budget254.00 Parliament House25/06/97DinnerJournalist100.00 The Fig30/06/97LunchJournalist145.00 The Ottoman11/11/97Lunch with Menin Gate BuglersMenin Gate Bugler party, Parliamentary representatives, senior portfolio staff (21 attendees)1,173.38 Parliament House18/12/97Australian Health Ministers Meeting DinnerMinisterial staff (2)160.00 Sydney Marriott19/2/98"Meet the Minister" functionRepresentatives of Darwin ESOs and DVA staff, including OAWG and VVCS (about 25 people)400.00North Darwin Sub-branch clubrooms23/02/98Breakfast2 RSL + 1 Departmental representatives37.50 The Athenian26/02/98Dinner for participants at Ex-service Organisation Consultative ForumEx-service organisation representatives and senior departmental officers (40 attendees)3,245.00The Treloar Centre, AWM, Mitchell2/03/98Lunch1 veteran + partner66.70 Parliament House8/04/98Dinner to celebrate the 80th Anniversary of the Repatriation CommissionCurrent and previous Repatriation Commission members 939.00The BoatHouse by the Lake27/04/98Lunch with French MinisterFrench Minister for Veterans' Affairs, ex-service organisation representatives, senior portfolio staff (22 attendees)1,009.87 Parliament House—12/5/98 & 13/5/98Budget Night Briefing + Drinks for DVA staffESO representatives, DVA staff involved in Gold Card extension497.38Parliament House15/05/98Budget Night Dinner ESO representatives (14 attendees)490.00 Parliament House28/05/98Lunch for Greek OfficersDVA representative and Greek Military Officers visiting Australia (15 attendees)583.50 Parliament House—2/06/98DinnerAustralian War Memorial Foundation representative + partners (4 attendees)135.45 Parliament House25/06/98Lunch—Vietnam Veterans AssociationVietnam Veterans Assoc of Aust representatives (2)96.15 Parliament House31/08/98Drinks for DVA Staff DVA Staff involved in organising Western Front trip to France 332.94 Parliament HouseThe following table lists similar information for the previous two Ministers for Veterans' Affairs:DatePurposeAttendeesCost ($)Venue02/08/93DinnerRSL representative32.00Sala da Pranzo Rest, Sydney03/08/93DinnerRSL representative75.50Society Rest, Melbourne13/08/93LunchNational ESOs—15 attendees615.25Parliament House23/09/93Breakfast1 guest10.00Quality Langley Plaza Hotel, Perth08/12/93Drinks for departmental staff Staff from DVA and Defence 485.20Parliament House23/05/94Lunch30 attendees250.00Parliament House25/05/94Lunch 22 attendees 119.90Parliament House31/05/94Lunch7 attendees216.50Parliament House29/06/94Dinner17 attendees1002.00Parliament House30/06/94LunchD-Day veterans (12 attendees)207.00Parliament House11/07/94Lunch—Australia Remembers2 unknown147.50Lobby Rest, Canberra22/07/94Lunch—Australia RemembersJournalists238.20Mixing Pot, Sydney04/08/94Dinner—Australia RemembersJournalist189.90Fringe Benefits, Canberra29/08/94Dinner—Australia Remembers4 Journalists 262.65Hyatt, Canberra30/08/94Dinner13 attendees620.00Parliament House01/09/94Lunch4 attendees77.10Parliament House07/09/94Salute to Wallace Brown Dinner55.70Parliament House22/09/94Lunch6 attendees122.60Parliament House11/10/94Morning teaVeterans120.00Parliament House19/10/94LuncheonAust Remembers Task Force ?250.50Parliament House28/10/94Dinner—Australia RemembersJournalists141.50Five Doors. Sydney01/11/94Dinner—Australia Remembers1 attendee 158.50Lilyvale Rest, Sydney16/11/94Farewell Dinner—Brendon Kelson10 attendees751.90Parliament House05/12/94Luncheon—Australia RemembersACT Exec Committee (11 attendees)269.50Parliament House07/12/94LunchJournalists140.00Parliament House08/12/94Thank you to DVA staff40 people214.75Parliament House19/12/94-10 attendees751.90Parliament House13/01/95Lunch—Australia Remembers2 guests*63.95Compadres Bar & Grill08/02/95Lunch5 attendees107.00Parliament House10/02/95Lunch2 guests213.50Caf Alcaston, Melbourne13/02/95Lunch—Australia Remembers4 attendees*54.00Malaya Restaurant13/02/95Dinner—Australia Remembers1 attendee*28.00Ottoman Cuisine17/02/95Lunch—Australia Remembers2 attendees*44.40Compadres Bar & Grill 22/02/95Lunch—Australia Remembers2 attendees*75.10Ottoman Restaurant02/03/95LunchMembers of Minister's Advisory Committee on Veterans' Issues (MACOVI)227.00Parliament House28/03/95Dinner3 guests 68.00Parliament House30/03/95Lunch—Australia Remembers2 guests **65.00Sarang Rest, Manuka05/04/95Australia Remembers Lunch1 Ministerial staff + 1 other **61.00Parliament House30/05/95Dinner—Victoria VP Concert Group6 attendees119.00Parliament House20/06/95FunctionUnknown125.75Parliament House30/08/95Lunch—Corps of Commissionaires1 attendee46.50Parliament House25/09/95MACOVI luncheonMACOVI members (26 attendees)234.00Parliament House25/09/95MACOVI dinnerMACOVI members (19 attendees)1125.10Private Dining Room18/10/95Morning tea for Victoria Cross winners 53 attendees363.50Mural Hall18/10/95Lunch—VC winners 9 attendees307.50Parliament House29/11/95Morning tea for DVA staffVAFIS staff (47 attendees)473.50Mural Hall* Hosted by Ministerial Staff at Minister's direction. Payment made for guests only** Hosted by Ministerial Staff at Minister's direction.Note: All functions were attended by the serving Minister for Veterans' Affairs unless otherwise indicated.4634(Question No. 310)3104634Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 1 December 1998.(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the then Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Anderson), not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to October 3 1998.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose of the dinner or function; (c) who were the attendees of the dinner or function; (d) what was the cost of the dinner or function; and (e) what was the venue4634Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 9 functions(2) See attachedTo place this information into context, similar information is provided for the period March 1993 to March 1996 for the then Minister of the portfolio.Official Hospitality Minister AndersonDatePurposeAttendeesCostVenue27/8/98Meeting with women who attended the 2nd international conference on women in agriculture20 people including John Anderson and the women who participated in the international conference on women in agriculture.$89.00Parliament House 3/2/98To meet over breakfast with senior managers in the banking, agriculture and resource sectors to discuss the Asian debt/currency crisis and its impact on Australian and Australasian portfolio industriesJohn Anderson , three departmental officers and CPD representatives.$330.00National Convention Centre24/11/97Joint Anderson/Hill function for Commonwealth DPIE and Environment Australia officials: Tasmania RegionalJohn Anderson, departmental officers and officials from Environment Australia.$174.50MG68 Office of Sen Hill9/12/97Dinner meeting re portfolio issuesJohn Anderson and an industry leader.$108.00Charcoal Restaurant17/12/98Dinner meeting re portfolio decisionsJohn Anderson, a departmental officer and an industry leader.$159.50Charcoal Restaurant4/2/97Drinks with senior members of the NSW Farmers AssociationJohn Anderson and senior members of the NSW Farmers Association$154.00Office of Minister Anderson3/3/97Supermarket to Asia-Quality and safety working group mtgJohn Anderson and members of the Supermarket to Asia-Quality and safety working group mtg$174.00Parliament House24/2/97Delegation from American Farm Bureau FederationJohn Anderson, a number of his parliamentary colleagues, and representatives from the American Farm Bureau Federation.$615.00House of Reps Alcove Parl House11/4/96Lunch for SA Minister for Primary IndustryJohn Anderson, the SA Minister for Primary Industry and officials.$119.25Parliament HouseTotal$1923.25LABOUR GOVERNMENT—MARCH 1993 TO MARCH 1996Official Hospitality Minister BeddallDatePurposeAttendeesCostVenue21/07/93Meeting with Secretary Minister and WIR CommitteeMinister, officials and WIR Committee$322.00The Boathouse17/10/93Bilateral Meeting with other Ministers during the Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting by Minister Crean.Minister and his Ministerial colleagues$188.00International Hotel Geneva05/11/93Lunch Wool Selection CommitteeRepresentatives of the Wool Selection Committee$47.00Pavilion24/11/93Lunch Wool Selection CommitteeRepresentatives of the Wool Selection Committee$24.90Le Rendezvous Manuka01/12/93Portfolio Luncheon MeetingMinister and officials$202.90Marchettis Latin Restaurant Melbourne18/05/94Official Dinner$450.00Dear Friends Hobart31/05/94Portfolio coordination meeting Ministers and staff of the three offices$236.30Parliament House14/06/94Official working DinnerMinister and officials$537.20Barnacle Bills Cairns15/06/94Official Working LunchMinister and officials$96.00Radison Plaza Hotel Cairns23/06/94Brisbane media / press discussions Minister, staff and media$325.00Pier 9 restaurant05/07/94Briefing by Defence prior to visit to Shoalwater BayMinister and officials$145.00Capricornia Hotel15/07/94Official DinnerMinister and industry representatives$419.00LeSands08/09/94CPSU meetingCPSU members$53.10Commonwealth Centre Melbourne13/09/94Industry and Gov't task forceState and Federal Minister's , officials and representatives of mining companies$68.40Parliament House23/09/94ARMCANZ special meeting50 people—10 of whom were Ministers$414.50Parliament House 23/09/94Lunch meeting to discuss 1.prioritisation of commercialisation 2.Agriculture Statutories Authorities Legislation 3. Board selection process Minister and Board Selection Member$50.00Taj Mahal Restaurant29/09/94Dinner discussing training issues to be raised at visit to Tasmanian Forest Industry Minister and officials$271.60Prossers on the beach Hobart21/10/94Portfolio coordination meetingMinister and backbenchers$78.00Parliament House26/10/94Discussions on portfolio issuesMinister and officials$118.90Parliament House01/11/94Meeting with Core Industry Study team and MinistersMinister and Core Industry Study team$264.00Breakfast Creek Hotel QLD08/12/94Fisheries Ministerial meetingMinisters$60.00Parliament House21/12/94Legislative meetingOfficials$40.00MCD Conference room2&3/03/95ARMCANZ meetingLunch at the Country Comfort Inn for 55 people, six of whom were Ministers$1,760.00Country Comfort Inn13/04/95Official LuncheonInternational industry guests.$928.50Waterfront Restaurant Sydney02/05/95Briefing MediaMinister and media$26.00Mathew's Melbourne10/07/95Official DinnerMinister and officials$295.90Pier restaurant Sydney18/07/95Official dinnerMinister and officials$261.60Sheraton Breakwater Townsville26/07/95Forestry Minister's DinnerMinisters$544.94Donnini's Restaurant and King and Godfrey Melbourne15/12/95Journalist briefing backgrounder SydneyMinister and journalists$223.00Waterfront RestaurantTotal$8,451.7429 functions at a total of $8,451.74