1999-05-113912SENATE471301999-05-11The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice471347134713Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the Reserve Bank confirmed in this month's statement on monetary policy that Japan's economy has been stagnating since April 1997—since the decision to increase the country's GST rate from three to five per cent? Isn't it a fact that Japan's series of income tax cuts in 1998 failed to kick-start the economy because consumers focused on the tax increase? Given the disastrous impact the GST increase had on the Japanese economy, on what basis does the Howard government assume its 10 per cent GST on virtually every good and service will not have a similar effect on the Australian economy?4713Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Sherry, for that question. The disaster which afflicted the Australian economy occurred with Mr Keating's recession we had to have. It was Mr Keating's policies which drove the Australian economy through the floor, which raised rates of interest—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Tell us about the GST.WW4Senator KEMP—You asked about the Australian economy and I am telling you what happened in the Australian economy. The Keating experiment resulted at times in home loan interest rates rising above 17 per cent and going north. It resulted in an unemployment level of 11.4 per cent compared with about 7.4 per cent today. Senator, the Labor Party cannot teach this government anything at all about responsible management of the economy. It is well known that there are serious problems in Japan—serious problems which have been accumulating for a long period of time. So your attempt, Senator, to claim that this was a result of a GST is, frankly, not correct.We are trying to carry the reform agenda onwards in the Australian economy. We are trying to move reform along a very broad front. We make no apologies for tax cuts. In your question you pointed to tax cuts in Japan as failing to stimulate the economy. Let me make it quite clear: this government makes no apology for cutting taxes. We would like to deliver to the Australian people exactly what we promised in the last election, which was, amongst other things, major tax reform, including some $13 billion of tax cuts to taxpayers.The reforms we have in place will continue this broad thrust which has made Australia, according to one of the American economists, one of the miracle economies of the world. That came about because this government was prepared to pursue a reform agenda, the vast proportion of which was resisted at every turn by the Labor Party. Senator, let me assure you that we wish to proceed at full speed with our tax reform programs, which include a GST and major tax cuts for individuals. We wish to proceed with our reform agenda as very well articulated by Senator Alston in telecommunications and by Peter Reith in industrial relations. This government is not afraid of reform. If the Labor Party cannot assist that process, we would like them to get out of the way and allow us to do the job.4714Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The point about Japan was that the income tax cuts failed to offset the particular problems with the increase in the GST which dented consumer demand. Do the Treasurer's comments that any added GST compensation would cause the economy to overheat mean that the government will not be providing any more so-called compensation, except of course to casino high rollers?4714Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The last comment was quite wrong, as Senator Sherry knows. There is no compensation to casino high rollers. That was quite wrong. We think our tax package is fair. It was very carefully crafted. We know that there are others in this chamber who do not feel that and we will listen very carefully to the debate as it proceeds.47144714Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Almost 400,000 new jobs have been created since the election of the Howard government and unemployment is at its lowest level since 1990. Will the minister advise the Senate of new information indicating the strength of the Australian economy and what this means for creating even more jobs and securing Australia's economic future?4714Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Howard government has given sound and responsible economic management to this country. I can assure the Senate that they will get more of the same tonight: sound and responsible management. This has been recognised by others. The Australian Industry Group, in its May economic briefing, said:Australia is enjoying the fruits of a virtuous set of circumstances: strong economic growth, high productivity growth, low inflation, low interest rates, rising real incomes and a federal budget in surplus.These indicators do not come around by chance. Just compare them with those under Labor for a moment. Since the recession Mr Keating gave this country—the one he said we had to have—Labor brought in a series of budget deficits: 1991-92, $13 billion deficit; 1992-93, $19 billion deficit; 1994-95, $14 billion deficit; 1995-96, $10 billion deficit. In the last two years Mr Beazley was finance minister $25 billion of deficit was his economic record, his legacy of debt to the Australian people that the Australian people have to pay for. The contrast we can be confident of tonight is that the budget will again be in surplus under this government.As has been said by others, this economic achievement has been recognised around the world. I remind the Senate of what was said in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, 28 April:Australia hasn't just avoided the Asian-Pacific downturn; it has roared ahead. While the economies of most of its Asian trading partners contracted last year, Australia's expanded 5.1 per cent, surpassing the US's 3.9 per cent pace and making it one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world.Why was this? It was because we kept interest rates down, we took the hard decisions to reduce expenditure and we kept inflation down, giving incentive to Australian business to grow and to employ. This is being recognised by more employer organisations all the time. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry tells us, and I quote:There is an increasingly optimistic outlook on the economy.The chamber's latest survey of investor confidence shows that business confidence has reached its highest level since the survey commenced in 1991. Another survey from the Society of Certified Practising Accountants shows that 72 per cent of small business owners felt optimistic about the business environment over the next six months, with 24 per cent planning to employ more staff. That is good news for unemployed Australians. The Morgan and Banks job index survey supports this outlook, showing that, for the third consecutive quarter, levels of optimism in relation to employment growth have continued to rise. The survey shows that more than one-third of the employers surveyed are planning to increase their permanent staffing levels. Yesterday the ANZ job vacancy figures provided further confirmation, with jobs advertisements at a post-recession high—that is, since Mr Keating's recession, jobs vacancies are now at a record high.For this government, the job is not complete. The process of reform must continue if we are to build upon the sound foundation that we have put in place in this country. As the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants also said, the government now needs to move ahead with the GST and other business tax reforms to ensure that it does not impede the ability of small business to continue to employ more Australians. (Time expired)47154715Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is also directed to Senator Hill, this time in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. It is not one of the soft dorothy dix economic questions. This is one of the hard economic questions. Let us see whether he has the courage to answer it. Can the minister confirm that the trade deficit for March—in trend terms, $1,423 million, representing an increase of $91 million over the previous month—was the fifth record deficit in succession? Why, yet again, are imports going up and exports going down? Why, in this situation, does the government continue to oppose the lifting of the $150 million cap on the Export Market Development Grants Scheme? And why is it planning to impose a GST on inbound tourism, one of our fastest growing exports?4715Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Obviously today is a free question time because that question would never have got through the questions commit tee. What it does is take the path of Labor's failed economic record. Senator Cook stands for increased government expenditure. What does he say? He says, `Lift the cap on the EMDG Scheme'; in other words, spend more public money. That is what Labor did in all its years in government, which gave us that huge and continuing deficit that Australians had to pay for, which pushed up interest rates and put more Australians out of work. Senator Cook has not learnt a thing. It is not surprising that he was the senator who assured the Australian people, as we went into the election in 1996, that the Australian economy was not in deficit. That is how little he understood about it, as a manager of government policy with his hands on the lever. He said to the Australian people that the accounts were not in deficit when, in fact, they were $10 billion in deficit.Senator Cook asks, `Why are imports continuing to grow?' The answer is simple. It is because the Australian economy is booming. People are buying. Why is it difficult to sell overseas? It is because Asia is struggling: a lot of Asian economies are struggling. What would you expect to happen? You would expect your markets to be more difficult and you would expect Australians to be buying more goods both internally and externally, and that is exactly what is happening. But the important point is that it is happening in an economic environment where we can afford for it to happen without getting into the awful mess of Labor in the run-up to the 1990 recession. Labor could not manage it because its deficits were so high. So Labor said that the only answer was to push up interest rates. It pushed up interest rates and sent small business to the wall. A million Australians become unemployed. Senator Cook, we do not need a lecture from you. Labor failed economically. That is why it was thrown out of government. This government has put in place economic management principles that can ensure ongoing prosperity and increasing employment and we are proud of it.4715Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not need a lecture from you either, Minister, about economic management. You might just try and answer this simple, straightforward question and not dodge it, for a change. See whether you can answer this question for us: how much longer does the government expect the trade balance to be in deficit at these record levels? Can you tell us how much longer our trade balance will be in deficit at these record levels? Can you answer that straight question, Minister?4716Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There are some hopeful signs. Not only have we diversified our exports, which I would have thought Senator Cook would applaud, but also some Asian countries are starting to come out of the recession. Korea is starting to look a bit better. As their economies strengthen, their demand for Australian goods will grow and, provided the commodity prices and other matters that are out of our control are reasonable, we will do well.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It's up to them, not up to us.BH4Senator HILL—That is absolutely right, Senator Cook. In part, it depends upon your market. If your market is in economic failure, you do not sell your products. The point is that Labor's huge deficits were when Asia was booming. So the markets were thriving but Labor still could not produce the goods. That is why we say Labor has failed, and most Australians recognise it.47164716Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is for the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Since being elected in 1996, the coalition has managed taxpayers' money so that the government is not spending more than it earns. How has the coalition ensured that the federal government is now living within its means? Will the minister also enlighten the Senate how this fine record compares with the past government's track record in mismanaging the books?4716Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Synon—my Victorian colleague—for that important question. Madam President, the government living within its means, specifically in relation to the nation's finances, is something that should not be taken lightly, in our view. The Howard government respects the fact that the dollars we collect come from Australian taxpayers and we believe they have a right to know where the money is being spent and that it is being spent wisely. Our record in government so far—such as implementation of the charter of budget honesty and the pre-election fiscal outlook, as opposed to Labor's two-page press release that was their mid-year review—underpins this. What this means is that before any election Australians will be told the true financial state of the nation.When we came to power, the coalition said that, despite the massive deficit left by the outgoing Labor government, we will commit ourselves to balancing the budget within our first term. We achieved a budget surplus within two years. Labor left a deficit of over $10 billion when, during the 1996 election, the then government was saying to Australians that the budget was in surplus. Of the 13 budgets delivered by Labor from 1983 to 1996, nine of them were in deficit.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—How many?WW4Senator KEMP—Nine of them were in deficit. Nine of them spent more than the government earned and they ran up some $80 billion in debt, the interest on which we have to repay. The Labor record is appalling because Labor was prepared to spend up big and let future generations of taxpayers pay for their big spending policies.Leading up to tonight's budget, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, was swanning around today saying that Labor could have produced a larger surplus than the government because it would not be giving tax cuts to the rich. In response to this rubbish, let me quote Terry McCrann in this morning's Herald Sun. He said:Coming from the man who was deputy prime minister and/or finance minister in the Keating government that gave us $70 billion of budget deficits in just five years, that surplus claim has to be taken with a few trillion grains of salt.McCrann also states correctly that at the last election Beazley Labor defined `rich' as people who earn $800 a week before tax. So if you earn around $600 per week after tax you are rich, according to the Labor Party, and not deserving of any tax cuts. The truth is that Labor would not have delivered a budget surplus if it were in government. They would have tried to tell Australians that spending billions of dollars more than the nation earned was living within our means. Thankfully, the country has turned its back twice now in three years on the economic irresponsibility of Labor. That is the reason why Labor is still in opposition.47174717Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Alston representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, is it a fact that the Office of the Employment Advocate is currently conducting an advertising campaign promoting Australian workplace agreements, or AWAs, which is misleading and may be in breach of section 51 of the Trade Practices Act? Can the minister confirm that the advertisement includes the line, `No employee is in any way worse off with an AWA'? Is it not a fact that many employees who sign AWAs surrender conditions such as penalty rates and overtime? Doesn't this make the advertising by the Employment Advocate misleading and deceptive?4717Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Madam President, what Senator Collins is wanting is a legal opinion. In fact, she answered her own question at the very end in any event. Whether something is misleading is not a matter for me to make a judgment about. If your question is also whether it is in breach of section 51 of the Trade Practices Act, that is a matter for others to determine; we do not make those judgments. People are entitled to approach the ACCC or take their own action. If that is the case, then no doubt you and your union friends will take the hat around once again and waste a lot more time trying to ensure that taxpayers do not understand the real benefits, and that is what it ought to be about.Your commitment ought not to be nitpicking, not trying to pay off your dues time and again, trying to find fault with every little thing the government does to free up the industrial relations system. What you ought to be doing is rejoicing in the fact that there is a lot more flexibility in these arrangements, that by reducing the level of requirements to be included in some of the awards, no doubt people like Senator Collins and her successors in title will probably find there is a lot less business before the commission because you will not be able to enjoy yourself as an industrial advocate to the extent that you have in the past. That is not good news for taxpayers or for workers; it is simply good for you and your union mates.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should address your remarks to the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, what we want is a system that allows a lot more flexibility, allows workers to negotiate their own arrangements and not be distracted by scare campaigns such as the one you want to run. If you want to pay for some legal advice, I suggest you go and ask your friends to stump up with the money.4717Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Howard government's consistent performance in this area, and given the government's record of producing misleading and deceptive advertising campaigns such as the private health insurance and GST ads, when will the government live up to its responsibility to provide comprehensive and accurate information to Australian workers about their conditions of employment?4717Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We do think it is important to ensure that people are fully informed. We are not in the business of deliberately misleading people. My recollection is that Senator Ellison has responded to the health advertisements issue and pointed out that the ACCC did not find any fault with them. The trouble is that you do not want to accept the umpire's verdict. You simply want to peddle misinformation and create the impression that somehow all these advertisements and advertising campaigns are simply not justified. You had a great track record of promoting advertisements to inform the public and interested groups about initiatives taken, and you defended those to the hilt—I have forgotten the amount for the superannuation guarantee charge, but it was something close to $10 million.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—We told the truth.LD4Senator ALSTON—If you told the truth as you saw it, then you no doubt believed you were justified also in spending that amount of money. The amount of money that has been spent here is minuscule by comparison. (Time expired)47184718Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Minister, can you confirm that a lawyer from your Office of Indigenous Policy was sent to Darwin to instruct solicitors running the Commonwealth's case against the two members of the stolen generation who are claiming damages? Minister, do you believe it is appropriate for your staff to be acting against the interests of indigenous people in this way?4718Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Woodley for the question. The government is responding to the case—that is the government's responsibility—through the Office of Indigenous Policy, for which I am responsible. Yes, I have certainly taken a keen interest in the case, and I will continue to do so because that is my responsibility on behalf of the Australian public and the government. A lawyer from the Office of Indigenous Policy went to Darwin and is following that case on my behalf. The officer reports to me so that I can take an interest in what is occurring. The case is continuing and I will keep that officer there so that the government can be informed of the events as they unfold.4718Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, how much money has the government set aside to run the Commonwealth's case against the stolen children?4718Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The question is incorrect. The government is not running a case against the stolen children; the government is responding to the case that is currently in process and will continue to do so. In response to the specific question in relation to the cost to date, I will get the information to Senator Woodley, but it is a continuing process. It is not unusual for a government to respond to a case. The Keating government responded to similar types of cases, and the Carr government is currently responding to a similar case in New South Wales. But I am happy to find out what the current cost is and report back to Senator Woodley.47184718Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that private health insurance funds have applied for price increases averaging six per cent, which will become effective from 1 June this year? Is he aware that a typical family with a policy costing $1,700 a year who had previously been receiving the means-tested rebate saw the amount of their rebate increase from $450 to $510 under the government's most recent policy attempt? Isn't it the case that the very first premium increase after the introduction of the rebate will wipe out that $60 gain for low income families? How can the government justify the fact that low income families will be paying more in June than they were paying before the government spent $1.7 billion to make private health insurance more attractive?4718Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The hypocrisy of this question is breathtaking. The opposition when they were in government were the people who tried deliberately to destroy private health insurance through a number of means—they removed the private bed day subsidy and produced a 35 per cent increase in private health insurance by withdrawal of subsidies. So the hypocrisy of the question is absolutely breathtaking. What we are doing is providing incentives for people to take out private health insurance by giving a 30 per cent rebate regardless—right across the system.Obviously the government has a strong interest in the level of premiums charged by health insurance funds—that premiums charged are kept at an affordable level. As I have said almost ad nauseam, the cost of private health insurance will increase. We have a rapidly ageing population. We have a plethora of miraculous things being done for the ageing population: joint replacements, cardiac transplants, renal transplants and coronary bypass surgery are all occurring with a rapidly ageing population. It is inevitable, unless the honourable senator has some other solution other than socialising it, which did not work. He should stop carping about private health insurance premiums increasing. They will increase and the government is attempting to do its best to get more people into private health insurance so that the community rating principle is maintained and so that insurance premiums are kept at a minimum.To deny a health fund a premium increase in circumstances of financial need could result in health funds closing and disruption for their members. We want the private health insurance system to continue. Health funds have only limited control over the charges set by private hospitals and doctors, and they have no control at all over the rising costs of health technologies and the effects of the ageing population.Let me remind honourable senators that the health insurance funds have not increased premiums for over a year. That never occurred under the Labor Party when it was in government. They have been kept down for a year. We are giving everybody a 30 per cent rebate, and as increases in costs faced by health insurers occur constantly over time, the funds must pass these increases on to their members through higher premiums. There is no other alternative, and to say that the government can control this is like saying that we can stop the tide. The tide will come in whether you like it or not. We are doing our best to make sure that as many people as possible stay in private health insurance to take the pressure of the public hospital system so that we can retain Medicare.4719Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. From the minister's answer, I take it he is conceding that the premiums will go up from 1 June. I would be interested to know to what extent they will go up. But the question I directed to him went to the fact that premium increases will result in the advantages of the rebate being eaten away. I want to know what the government is doing about that. Low income families will be worse off than they were before the rebate if premiums go up by six per cent. I want to what know the government is doing to address that. The government says that the problem is affordability. This will make it less affordable than it was before the rebate was introduced. What are you doing to address that issue?4719Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I never thought I would see the day when the Labor Party would advocate private health insurance and be so concerned that people stay on. I am absolutely delighted that we have that as the official policy of the Labor Party now—to sustain private health insurance. What did the Labor Party do for compensation? Nothing!AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—What is the answer?VW4Senator HERRON—I will have to explain to the honourable senator: the funds take money in, they are non-profit organisations and they have to pay funds out to cover the claims, otherwise they go broke. That is the reality. We are giving a 30 per cent rebate on premiums so that we can encourage people to stay in private health insurance so that we can sustain affordability, even for people on very low incomes.47194719Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question without notice is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and relates to Basslink—the proposal to put in an undersea cable from Tasmania to Melbourne to meet the Victorian power needs mooted by 2002. Will the minister absolutely guarantee his own world heritage management plan, which prohibits either new dams on the Gordon and Franklin rivers or a rejigging of existing hydro schemes which have an adverse impact on the world heritage area and its wilderness values? Is he aware that the Tasmanian Premier overnight has stated that there will be a cofferdam as part of this proposal and that that cofferdam would affect the world heritage area, in complete breach of the minister's management plan? Will he give the Senate an assurance that no such dam will be built?4720Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There will be a cooperative environmental assessment process between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian governments, and it will look at all aspects of the environmental consequences of the proposal. Obviously, the position of this government, which has a very strong record on environmental matters, will be to ensure that there is no significant environmental damage as a result of the program. The other side of the ledger, of course, that Senator Brown never considers is the very significant economic advantage that can come to Tasmania through the development of Basslink—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—And jobs.BH4Senator HILL—And the jobs that can be created as a result. This government looks for win-win outcomes, and we are not ashamed to say that. We want to see good economic outcomes and more jobs for Australians, and we want them to be created in an environmentally sustainable way. We have been able to achieve that win-win objective elsewhere, and I am confident we will be able to achieve it in this instance.4720Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As you will have heard, the minister for the environment has just failed to back up his own management plan for protecting the world heritage area. Is it a fact, Minister, that in 1983 the Fraser Liberal government was brought down, in part, because of its refusal to protect the Gordon and Franklin system from dams? Again I ask the minister: will you be so good as to be straight with the Senate and say that you will stand behind the world heritage management plan and that that there will be neither a dam built on the Gordon River nor the alternative proposal of diurnal flooding through the Gordon Gorge and the Gordon Splits, with the consequent environmental damage, if Basslink were to go ahead?4720Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I can assure Senator Brown that this government will support a good environmental outcome that is consistent with economic growth and jobs for Tasmanians. If Senator Brown is not interested in jobs for Tasmanians, that is his problem; but this government is.47204720Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Can the minister confirm that the GST will apply to all elements of the Prime Minister's drug treatment initiative, with the sole exception of counselling services delivered by a registered health professional? Can he confirm, for example, that the 10 per cent GST will apply to residential rehabilitation, including accommodation, food and other services provided? Will the government increase its grant to compensate for the higher costs of delivering drug treatment services if the GST is introduced?4720Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Health costs are cut by the GST as health is zero rated. So I think the question seems to be based largely on a misconception. The issue was raised in relation to residential facilities, and the following categories of facilities will not have to charge GST for their fees: facilities that receive funding under the Aged Care Act 1997; and facilities funded by the Commonwealth, state or territory governments, where the minister for aged care determines in writing for the care and accommodation facilities. So, in relation to home and community services, there are similar criteria. We believe that we have a very good package and that people who have to use health services will certainly benefit from them.4720Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. You did not answer the question. I talked about drug treatment facilities. Is the minister aware that pharmaceutical charges on the methadone program are up to $35 a week for dispensing methadone from chemists? Will the GST apply to these charges or will they be exempt in the same way that PBS charges are exempt?4720Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The GST is not applied to prescription medicines.47204720Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. Our govern ment is making important progress in creating economic opportunities to encourage indigenous Australians to break free from the shackles of welfare dependency. Is the minister aware of media debate about welfare dependency, and will he outline what our government is doing to provide a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?4721Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question and for her continued interest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. She, like most of us, would be well aware of the social and economic disadvantages within the indigenous community. I was pleased to see Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson raising concerns about the effect of many, many years of welfare on his people. While indigenous Australians remain locked into welfare dependency they have no real future and will never be able to share the quality of life and standard of living their fellow Australians enjoy. I welcome Mr Pearson's comments, for they support the government's determination to encourage indigenous Australians to rid themselves of the welfare mentality fostered particularly under the last 13 years of Labor government.Labor actually shovelled $16,000 million out the door, but there was little improvement for indigenous Australians. Not only that, Labor paid young Australians more money to be on the dole than to be in education and training. Sadly, 60 per cent of indigenous Australians are dependent on welfare, and over 50 per cent are totally dependent. That was the legacy that we inherited.I noticed the other day that the Beattie-Beazley message boy, Mr Wayne Swan, has miraculously seen the light. After three years of attacking our policies, Mr Swan has admitted Labor's approach was `yesterday's approach to yesterday's problem'.YH4MacGIBBONSenator MacGibbon—He's yesterday's man.VW4Senator HERRON—What hypocrisy from one of yesterday's men! Thank you, Senator MacGibbon. For the past three years, the Howard government has fostered economic empowerment among indigenous Australians through education, training, the creation of jobs and the development of successful indigenous businesses. We have also focused on the key areas of health and housing, to assist indigenous Australians to break out of the poverty cycle. We have focused on employment program assistance, traineeships and apprenticeships because they offer the best chance of permanent employment in the open labour market. When we came to office, there were just 800 indigenous trainees or apprentices. Now there are 6,000.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—I repeat: 6,000 in three years, Senator Stott Despoja, and there were 800 under the Labor Party. The number of indigenous higher education graduates grew from less than 10 in 1967 to around 1,000 in 1997, and well over 90 per cent of graduates are employed, mostly in jobs commensurate with their education. In 1972 there were only 75 indigenous Australians enrolled in higher education; last year there were 7,789.I think we are witnessing and are developing a number of initiatives such as Indigenous Business Australia, which will create wealth and job opportunities for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government will announce further programs in tonight's budget which will go a long way to creating more opportunities for indigenous Australians.A few years ago, I was in Canada and an indigenous Canadian leader made the point to me that economic development is the horse that pulls the social cart. The key to the future for indigenous economic development is independence from the welfare system.Senator Bolkus interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Indigenous people do not want welfare, Senator Bolkus; they want economic and social independence. At the end of the day, the nation as a whole will benefit when indigenous people participate equally in the economy of this country. If you read The Penguin History of Australia , Professor Malony said that the big mistake we made as a nation was not involving our indigenous people in the economic development and wealth of this country47224722Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. How does the minister explain the decision to appoint the First Assistant Secretary of the DETYA Higher Education Division, Mr Gallagher, as chair of the inquiry into the Greenwich University bungle, when Mr Gallagher was so heavily involved in the decision to allow this dubious entity to be set up in Australia?4722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Carr well knows the qualifications that Mr Gallagher has in relation to higher education and the knowledge that he has about the Greenwich University issue, because he questioned him for about four hours the other day on the subject. I have made it very clear in the Senate—and so has the minister concerned—that there is an inquiry into the credentials of Greenwich University ongoing. That is nothing new; it is something that was stated at the outset and it has been discussed at the ministerial council of education ministers. There is nothing wrong with Mr Gallagher heading up this inquiry; it is entirely appropriate. In fact, if we did not have him there, we would most probably be criticised for not having involved him in the inquiry. Mr Gallagher is enormously qualified to carry out this inquiry, and it is appropriate that he be in that position.4722Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate what steps were taken by DETYA when consulted by the department and/or the minister for territories to establish the bona fides of Greenwich University, either at the time Greenwich was seeking to be set up by regulation or when it sought to be established by act of the Norfolk Island legislature? Will you now confirm that the Commonwealth permitted the creation of this legally constituted university on Norfolk Island without prior assessment of the academic standing of the institution?4722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have already stated that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has stated that he instructed his department, DETYA, to under take a rigorous examination of information received from the Norfolk Island government on Greenwich's financial and academic credentials to assist him in forming a view on the Chief Minister's request to include Greenwich University on the AQF register. It is the AQF register that is important here. That is the aspect which is crucial to this, and that is something the opposition is overlooking. There is an inquiry afoot, and it is inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome of that inquiry.47224722Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to the Northern Territory government's decision to abolish bilingual education. Is the minister aware that yesterday a Catholic teaching nun with 40 years experience teaching Aboriginal children said publicly that this move was discriminatory? Is it not the case that bilingual education in the Northern Territory is funded by the Commonwealth? Is it not also the case that this government's so-called broadbanding back in 1996 has allowed the Northern Territory government to shift the money to other areas? Does the government agree that, under its international human rights obligations, it is morally bound to intervene in the Northern Territory government's decision?4722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Allison for this question. Senators will recall that Senator Allison raised this issue the other day and mentioned the Oxfam report on the very same subject. I can advise the Senate that, since then, Mr Jeremy Hobbs, the Executive Director of Community Aid Abroad and Oxfam Australia, issued a media release on 27 April which corrected their position. He states:The Oxfam report specifies that the Northern Territory government is responsible for the changes and does not mention the Federal Government in that regard.What I am saying here today, Madam President—1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister is answering my question from last week, and I ask you to direct him to answer the question for today.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison, I draw your attention to the question.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, the issue is the same. What Senator Allison has continued in this point is the attack on the federal government in relation to what is a Northern Territory issue. What I am bringing to the attention of the Senate is that in the Oxfam report—which Senator Allison relied on—there has been a subsequent correction saying that it is not the responsibility of the federal government. I might take it one step further in relation to the question that Senator Allison asked today and say that, in relation to the person concerned whom she quotes, I would advise them of the same thing: this is an issue for the Northern Territory government.I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth has put in place a number of programs to support improved education and goals for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education policy—the AEP—which aims to improve educational results for indigenous students. The Commonwealth is continuing to work with all states and territories to introduce a range of initiative strategic results projects at a cost of $35 million to improve educational outcomes for indigenous students in a number of selected schools across Australia. This government has done a great deal for indigenous education and continues to do so. But this is an issue for the Northern Territory government, and it is something that Senator Allison should take up with that government.4723Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister receive or request documentation from the Northern Territory government as to how abolishing bilingual education would improve English literacy outcomes? If so, can that be made public? Why doesn't the minister use the government's generous literacy and indigenous education funding to the Northern Territory government to insist that it reinstate bilingual education? Minister, why is it that you and Dr Kemp keep refusing to acknowledge the existence or the import ance of bilingual education? Why is it that you even refuse to use the term?4723Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Commonwealth does not dictate to the states and territories what specific educational programs should be put in place. In answer to the supplementary question, I can advise the Senate that the Commonwealth is working closely with Minister Adamson in relation to the Northern Territory initiatives and that performance targets have been agreed between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory and they include several that focus on expanding culturally inclusive curricula in preschools and schools, and that would include, no doubt, the issue that Senator Allison has raised here today.47234723Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I ask the minister whether he shares the views of his colleague the member for Bradfield that the Prime Minister's refusal to apologise to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be questioned by future generations who `will wonder why we found it so difficult to apologise'? I further ask the minister: can we expect Mr Howard to heed the warnings of Dr Nelson and also those more recently of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser about the stalled process of reconciliation, and will Mr Howard do so any quicker than the two years that it took him to act on Dr Nelson's 1996 advice to him to join Labor and to reject the One Nation Party?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—See if you can answer that.4723Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, it is easy enough to answer. The answers are no and no.4723Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We are becoming quite used to the shameful behaviour of this minister. Minister, do the indigenous people, whose interests he purports to represent in his government, regard the Prime Minister's cop-out in his draft preamble on the issue of their prior custodianship of this country as furthering or hindering the course of reconciliation?4724Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, the question of the preamble is before the Australian public. We certainly do not support the ALP's suggestions, but the question is open for debate. The Prime Minister has put forward his proposal—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You're a disgrace and a waste of space.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, withdraw that.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I will withdraw, but I also raise a point of—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are not asked to make a statement; you are asked to withdraw.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I wish to raise a point of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Have you withdrawn?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I have withdrawn. Madam President, the point of order is that I asked this minister whether, in the views of those he represents in this government—indigenous Australians—the Prime Minister's preamble will either hinder or advance the cause of reconciliation. He has not tried to answer that question. He has had quite a few minutes to do so, and I ask you to draw him to the question and not to let him ramble on as he seems to want to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I certainly do not respond in kind to the manner and behaviour of Senator Bolkus, and I do not intend doing so. The government has approved a draft preamble which acknowledges the original occupancy of Australia by indigenous peoples in a form of words that most Australians are likely to support. The government respects the views of Evelyn Scott and of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. In this case, it is the government's responsibility to draft a new preamble which is likely to win the support of the majority of the people in the majority of the states as required for it to pass a referendum. (Time expired)47244724Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston. As we approach the new millennium and as the information technology and communications revolution and sector become increasingly important to Australia's future, will the minister inform the Senate of how the government will continue to assist high growth industries such as this that are so vital to our prosperity? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would impact if these were implemented?4724Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The information technology industries are critically important to the future of Australia. Accordingly we have taken a number of steps to ensure that they prosper to the maximum extent possible, given the distance from markets and some other physical handicaps that we suffer from, but also recognising that in an online environment we are able to overcome many of those handicaps.Our information industry's action agenda, for example, has a number of very important new initiatives. Certainly, the Innovation Investment Fund, which contributes on a matching basis about $150 million to new start-up ventures, is critically important. The software engineering centres, the test and conformance programs and the technology diffusion program, which is worth something like $108 million over four years, together with RD Start of in excess of $740 million, are critically important initiatives.One would have thought that there would be a high level of agreement in the Australian community—and, therefore, across the political divide—that these are industries that are very well worth fostering. But what is the Labor Party's alternative approach? It is desperately disappointing. Not only, as we know, are they bound hand and foot to opposing the GST, so that in tax terms they stand for the current wholesale sales tax regime, which imposes a 22 per cent tax rate on computers, printers, keyboards and other ITT equipment—in other words, the very necessary tools of trade for anyone who wants to maximise returns from the online environment—but, even worse than that, for about the past 15 years they have been trying to talk up the IT sector. We had Barry Jones, for instance, saying that back in 1993 he tried to persuade the Hawke government to implement a national information policy approach. No luck! Lindsay Tanner, in his contribution to Out of the Rut, talks of the widespread acknowledgment of past failures in Labor's industry policy and says that, as far back as 1983, Labor promised support for sunrise high technology industries. What is going on here? How long are you allowed to be asleep at the wheel? There must be a Guinness Book of Records entry for how long you can be out to lunch politically and not cop an absolute thrashing.It is quite clear that what is happening on the other side is that we are going to have froth and bubble instead of any policy proposals in the lead-up to the national conference in January of next year. It is not just shadow boxing but basically irrelevant rhetoric, and that is no serious contribution to fostering the approach to sunrise industries such as IT. It is a very poor substitute.It is tragic that Mr McMullan went out in January this year at the National Performance Conference, admitted that Labor had been off track and said that the debate needed to be refocused. So what did he do? He trotted out some words and said how important it all was, and then three months later did it again. Back in April, only last month, he was out there again talking about it as though somehow, if you identify an industry, you have got a policy. Mr Beazley did it last week. You think that talking about something makes it a policy approach. Of course, it does not. Not only will our tax proposals make all of these essential tools much cheaper and therefore much more attractive but our whole industry approach is one that very much recognises that this is a sector that will create jobs, that will not just bring vast standards of improvement in social access but will also very much boost the national product. The contrast could not be starker. If the Labor Party wants to stay asleep at the wheel for even longer than they have to date, we welcome it. (Time expired)47254725McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General. Does the government consider the obligation for a citizen to serve on a jury as a community service obligation? Has the Attorney-General's Department provided any advice to the government, or even been consulted, as to the probable impact of the removal of jury service as an allowable matter from industrial awards? What impact is the removal of leave from awards likely to have on people's willingness to undertake jury service?4725Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. I do not have a brief from the Attorney-General on that question, and I am not even sure that it is a question that is properly addressed to the Attorney-General or to Mr Reith, as minister responsible for industrial relations. No doubt the two between them will have something to say about it, and I will refer your question to them and get you an answer.47254725Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is addressed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs. The government is strongly committed to modernising the laws that relate both to slavery and to sexual servitude. Can the minister inform the Senate of how the government's proposals for new offences relating to slavery and sexual servitude strengthen what is a national effort to stamp out this crime?4725Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question. I am aware of reports in the Melbourne Age that a Melbourne businessman has been charged with being an unlicensed prostitution provider, living off the earnings of prostitution, false imprisonment and possessing an unregistered firearm. Trafficking in people is a developing problem throughout the world. In the sex industry, trade in people essentially involves recruiting people from one country and relocating them to another to work as prostitutes in servile or slave-like conditions for little, if any, reward. There are few countries today that are not in some way affected by the trade and, sadly, the indications are that Australia is becoming an important destination for the victims of this trade. The government is committed to modernising the law relating to slavery. We should not be relying on old imperial offences.The government is also committed to introducing new offences relating to sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting to protect persons who are employed as sex workers in servile conditions or deceived into working as sex workers when that was not their intention. It is interesting to note the penalties that would be incurred if someone is prosecuted under the current laws relating to prostitution. In Victoria, under the Prostitution Control Act, living on the earnings of a prostitute incurs a penalty of about four years in prison; forcing a person to provide financial support out of prostitution incurs seven years in prison. In New South Wales it is dealt with under the Summary Offences Act, but the penalty for living on the earnings of prostitution is 12 months in prison, and allowing premises to be used is also 12 months in prison. Penalties in other states are broadly similar.However, it is important to note that the Commonwealth's Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 provides for qualitatively different penalties. I urge members of the opposition, the Democrats and the Greens to publicly indicate their support for this bill. It is one we could get through with a minimum of fuss and demonstrate some goodwill all around, because this bill has qualitatively different penalties. It provides for penalties of up to 25 years for a person who intentionally possesses a slave and it provides for penalties of up to 15 years for the basic offence where a person causes another to enter into or remain in sexual servitude. It is an important bill. It deserves the support of everyone in this chamber and I urge them to support it as soon as we get the opportunity.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous4726472615:01:004726Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I ask Senator Ellison representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 74(5), for an explanation of his failure to answer question on notice 231 placed on notice on 25 November 1998.15:01:004726Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand that there was an answer tabled this morning in relation to this matter. That was my understanding but I can say that the history of this matter is that the question arrived in the department shortly before the Christmas-New Year period when a significant number of the relevant staff took leave. When investigating the response it was found that the same question had been asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Therefore, in order to ensure that the two responses did not repeat information it was decided not to include information relating to the employment function which had transferred to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.Sorting that information out took some time. With the transfer of staff and responsibilities to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the passage of time since activities under particular contracts had been completed, access to some financial records was delayed while relevant files were located and retrieved from storage. The department's financial computer systems have changed and some delays were experienced in gathering and verifying financial data from two computer systems.There is no legal or common definition of market research and it was unclear as to whether some activities constituted market research. This involved consideration of many more contracts to ensure completeness of the response. Many of the department's resources were committed to responding to similar questions taken on notice from Senator estimates sessions. I had made inquiries, as I had received notice from Senator Ray in relation to this matter, and I had understood that the answer to Senator Ray's question on notice 231 was going to be tabled. If that has not occurred today, I will undertake to have it tabled after question time.15:03:004727Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Under the same standing order, I move:That the Senate take note of the explanation.I did not actually require that long explanation. The question may have been tabled. What your two colleagues did with a similar thing was just send it to my office as well as the Table Office. If that had been done, I would not even have raised it here today. If the question is under way, that is fine, but I do ask that in future, like most of your colleagues, you send it to the senator's office at the same time as you send it to the Table Office, and we then do not even have to go through this palaver.Question resolved in the affirmative.Questions Without Notice4727472715:04:004727Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cook today, relating to trade and the economy.Tonight the Treasurer will be delivering the budget for Australia for the next year. One of the things we will not hear anything about is the abysmal performance of this government in terms of managing its trade account and the abysmal performance of this government in racking up levels of foreign debt that are now a record. Let us just go to three figures. Australia has the largest ever trade deficit in its history—over $10 billion of trade deficit in the year 1998. We have the largest ever current account deficit. It was over $28 billion in 1998. And we have the highest foreign debt—defined as net foreign liabilities—of over $350 billion at the current level. That is to say, this government has brought in the trifecta: the largest ever trade deficit, the largest ever current account deficit, and the largest level of foreign debt in the history of this nation. We will not hear very much from Mr Costello tonight about answers to those problems, if the answer by Senator Hill in question time today is any guide.We ought to consider this. Australia has been a sovereign nation for 98 years. In that time we have had 35 Treasurers. Peter Costello is the 35th Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. He has done what none of the other 34 could do. He has managed, as I say, the trifecta: record trade deficit, record current account deficit and record foreign debt. When we went to the election in 1996 honourable senators may remember the Liberal Party debt truck rolling through the hills and breaking down in the Blue Mountains, claiming that the Labor government at that time was making sure that foreign debt was out of control. Foreign debt is out of control and it has sky-rocketed since those days under the very government that promised it would break the back of foreign debt. It has done so. Foreign debt is reeling out of control and is now a major economic problem for the country.When we asked the government today what they are going to do about it, what did they say? They blamed Asia as the cause of their problems. What do they otherwise say? They say that they will not spend any money to help Australian exporters develop new markets in other parts of the world to overcome the problems. We are buying more than we are selling on our external account. We are importing more than we are exporting. Imports are going up and exports are going down. The gap is widening. It cannot continue without bringing major economic problems to the domestic economy.Let me go through the figures on the trade deficit. Not only did the trade deficit for 1998 top $10 billion but also the trade figures released last week paint a very bleak picture. In trend terms, the deficit for March was $1.4 billion, the fifth successive record monthly trade deficit ever, and exports fell and imports rose. But it gets worse. In trend terms, Australia has had a trade deficit for the past 22 months, since the middle of 1997. We have had a trade deficit since—remember these people—Geoff Prosser, John Sharp and David Jull were ministers. That is how long it has been going.Let me turn for a moment to the balance of payments deficit. Australia's current account deficit in 1998 was over $28 billion. This represents an increase over the previous year, 1997, of 67 per cent. It is ballooning out of control. It cannot be blamed on growth either. The rate of the current account deficit to GDP is now five per cent higher than when the coalition came to office. The ratio of the current account deficit to GDP is steadily increasing. It has grown every quarter since December last year.On foreign debt, our net foreign liabilities are now $350 billion. That not only is an all-time record but also is up more than a fifth from when the coalition was first elected in 1996. If tonight Treasurer Costello pretends that he has won the gold medal for Australia, he has in fact won the wooden spoon on the trade deficit, on the current account deficit and on our net foreign debt. There will be no cry tonight of `Gold, gold, gold, Costello!' It is the wooden spoon all the way.15:10:004728Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is very sad when you have to get up and respond to a former failed minister, now a tired spokesman for an opposition that have no policies of their own to advance and that have a record, whilst in government, of 13 years of abysmal economic performance. The sheer audacity of them, I have to say, is absolutely astounding. The leader under which Senator Cook serves was the finance minister of this country. For the two years that he was finance minister, the federal budget deficit racked up $24 billion worth. In other words, 25 per cent of the federal government debt that had been incurred from 1901 through to 1996 was incurred in the two years that Mr Beazley was the finance minister. Indeed, Senator Cook was a senior minister in that government, and he has the absolute audacity to come into this chamber and try to lecture and hector us about economic performance.The worst economic performance that any government could have is one million people unemployed. Senator Cook was the chief architect of government policy at that time under Labor. That is the worst social statistic that any country could have, and Senator Cook presided over that. Was there any mention of that today? No, because we have brought unemployment down, haven't we, to 7.4 per cent. That is the lowest it has been in the 1990s.What about the budget deficit that Labor used to have? It is down; down to a surplus. The surplus is being used to pay off Labor's debts—the debts that people like Senator Cook racked up. They have the audacity to come into this chamber and try to tell us that somehow they have all of the economic answers. The reality is that, whilst Asia was booming, Labor was racking up budget deficit after budget deficit. Yet whilst we have been in government, Asia has been in crisis but we have been able to return budget surpluses. How have we done that? We have done that by sound economic management. As a result, interest rates have gone down, home loan affordability has gone up and small business loan affordability has gone up. As a result, employment opportunities have gone up and unemployment has come down. This is in stark contradistinction to all of those indicators whilst Labor was in government and especially while Senator Cook was parading as industry minister.The Labor Party have a feeling that Australia is going to get another excellent Costello budget tonight so they are desperately trying to scratch around to find some sort of indicator that might take some of the gloss off the budget that will be delivered tonight. I am sure that the people who are currently in the budget lockup, from the media and elsewhere, going through the budget documentation will be more than satisfied that the budget being brought down tonight will deliver further economic recovery to this great country and will undo the damage done by Mr Beazley and Senator Cook whilst they had charge of the economic management of this country.It is the height of audacity and duplicity for Senator Cook—with the failed past economic performance over which he presided—to come into this place and try to hector and lecture us about economic performance. We were judged at the last election on economic performance and we were re-elected. In support of that mandate given to us, we will be delivering another excellent budget this evening. I say to Senator Cook: watch this space; come into this place tonight and listen to a wonderful budget speech.15:14:004729Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The issue that we are taking note of from question time concerns Senator Cook's question to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, about the massive trade deficit for March of approximately $1.4 billion. It is interesting to note that either Senator Abetz did not listen to Senator Cook's question, because it went to trade deficit, not a budget deficit, or—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—He did not understand it.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right. Senator Abetz attempted to give us a lecture about budget deficits and not trade deficits. Trade deficit concerns imports and exports. Maybe Senator Abetz does not know what it is all about. That is the issue relating to trade deficits, not budget deficits. Senator Cook asked Senator Hill about a very serious issue which goes to the fundamental future of the economy of Australia: the trade deficit. We had the second highest trade deficit on record in March and an accumulated total to date of $35 billion, or approximately 6 per cent of the economy's output. This is at a time when the economy is growing strongly. It is interesting to note that on previous occasions when we have had significant trade deficits it has been as a consequence of a drought or at a time of recession. To have a trade deficit at this time, when the economy is growing strongly, is a problem. What is going to happen when the economy grows less strongly at some point in time?This large deficit raises questions about the country's ability to repay debt. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, continues to maintain that the best way of sustaining and underwriting our national debt is to have a surplus on the Commonwealth budget. To that extent Senator Abetz's comments were remotely relevant. The Treasurer asserts that he does not want to add to the blow-out of the budget deficit. I will return to that point a little later. What is interesting in the latest figures is that our exports were assisted by gold sales going up by $261 million to $9.3 billion. That is before the latest decline in gold sales. We all remember that the current Treasurer, Mr Costello, touched off a decline in gold sales. Since then I notice that the Swiss and now the British have been announcing a sell-off of gold, and we certainly will not see this improved export performance in gold in the near future. It is also interesting to note that imports rose by 9.3 per cent in the nine months to March but exports rose by just 0.2 per cent. We do not hear any more about the debt truck. Remember the debt truck that the Liberal Party in opposition used to drive around? It is in the garage, and I do not think we are going to see that truck for a long time.What are the consequences of this massive trade deficit for Australia? The reality is that to sustain that debt we have to import capital. We have to import capital in ever increasing amounts because if we do not we cannot pay for our imports. The other particular problem we have is that we have a very low, and declining, national savings level. National savings is a relevant issue; not the budget surplus but national savings is the most important issue in relation to paying for imported capital. As we have to import so much capital to meet the trade deficit, there is only one way to do that: sell off Australian assets and transfer ownership of Australian assets overseas.In the last few weeks the Reserve Bank of Australia has warned about the consequences of and all the hoopla concerning government budget surpluses. The big problem is that government surpluses and savings have been achieved at the cost of declining household savings. This government has transferred savings from the pockets of Australians to government savings. So you have a neutral outcome in terms of total savings levels in this country, and in fact we have declining national savings. Interestingly, national savings are close to zero at the present time. For Australians to pay the ever increasing national debt, we will have to sell off our assets, increasing foreign ownership, as I have said. That is, of course, until Australian consumers run up to their debt limit, and I suspect that we are fast reaching that point. Add the impact of a GST and we will have a very unfortunate recipe for the economy when it slows. (Time expired)15:19:004730Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to redress in the time available to me those intellectually impecunious comments made by Senator Cook and Senator Sherry. They would have you believe that somehow the Australian economy is in decline. There are no words of encouragement by the two Labor speakers. Why wouldn't you have words of encouragement when the OECD says that the Australian economy is the fastest growing of all the OECD countries; when, of the G7 economies, Australia in 1999 is the fastest growing economy apart from the US and in the year 2000 will be the fastest growing economy of the G7 nations? Why didn't they say that? Why didn't they also mention that Mr Beazley, now the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, in the two years that he was finance minister racked up $23 billion of debt? We are not talking about $6 billion; we are talking about $23 billion in two years, in the last year of which, when he said there was going to be a surplus in the economy, he produced a $10 billion deficit—the infamous $10 billion black hole of Mr Beazley.The opposition would also have you believe that we do not have the largest job vacancies on record in Australia right now, that we do not have low interest rates and that we do not have low inflation rates. Why weren't those things mentioned? The opposition want to destroy what is the fastest growing economy in the world, coupled to the lowest inflation. What other evidence do we have of the Labor Party wanting to destroy? No phoenix rises out of the Labor Party ashes; none at all. They want to destroy small business in the same manner as they are trying to destroy this economy with their failure to pass the amendments to the unfair dismissal laws. They wanted to destroy the states, and they still do, by bypassing the states and having a plan to fund local government. They wanted to destroy the workplace by failing to pass workplace agreements. They wanted to destroy the mining industry in Australia, the backbone of Australia's economy, by failing to pass the Native Title Amendment Act and putting a lot of the people they purport to represent out of work. They want to destroy that. They want to destroy it in Western Australia by not passing complementary native title amendment bills.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You wanted to secede.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I remind the Senate—over and above Senator George Campbell's raucous outburst—that in fact the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, comes from Western Australia. Why does a Leader of the Opposition, who hungers to be Prime Minister of this country—God forbid—and who comes from Western Australia, not instruct his people to pass the native title bill and want to destroy the economy of Australia by not doing so?BH4HILLSenator Hill—They wouldn't take any notice of him anyway.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—They don't take any notice of him. But that is the shame of the dearth of talent in the Labor Party: that you have to have a man who is so out of touch with reality that he fails to, or chooses not to, instruct his people to pass the state native title bills that have such a fundamental effect on the national economy.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, please do not reflect upon a member of either house or of any of the state parliaments.Senator George Campbell interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I have not done that yet, Madam Deputy President, but I thank you very much indeed for your advice, even though it was interrupted—rather rudely, I thought—by Senator George Campbell. We draw a distinction between the two Campbells, of course: the one on our side has some talent; the one on the other side is a destroyer, incidentally. Maybe it is part of the psyche of the trade union movement to destroy in order to rebuild, and that comes into this place through people like Senator George Campbell. Let me quote what the International Monetary Fund said about the Australian economy. It commended:. . . the Australian authorities for implementing sound macroeconomic policies and structural reforms which have built the foundation of Australia's impressive record of strong growth and low inflation in recent years.That is the International Monetary Fund. Can you find something wrong with that? Do you also want to destroy the International Monetary Fund? You want to destroy the GST. Why do you want to destroy the GST as well? Because you know that once the GST is passed in this place—even with amendments—we will be in power for years and years to come. If the economy is bubbling along so well now, you ain't seen nothing yet. When that GST is passed, it will give another shot in the arm to the best economy in the world.15:24:004731Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I also want to address the answer given by Senator Hill to Senator Cook's question. I will remind the Senate that the question related to our foreign debt and the current account deficit, not to the raft of other issues that have been raised by speakers on the other side of the chamber.It is interesting that, when we have a discussion or questions about the economy in this place, people on the other side are always keen to jump up and quote figures that might suit their argument. But when it comes to raising issues and questions about the foreign debt that this country faces, what have they said since 1996? Very little indeed. This is an issue that they put squarely on the agenda prior to the last election. They made foreign debt the central economic argument in this country in 1996. They built the debt truck; they took it around this country, saying to Australians that their standard of living was going to be destroyed because they owed $10,000 per person to the rest of the world for Australia's foreign debt.Let us compare what they said in 1996 with what has happened in fact over the past three years. Let us look at what the Prime Minister said, in response to a journalist, when he launched the debt truck on 20 September 1995. The journalist asked:Can you promise that foreign debt will be lowered in the first year of the Howard Government?The Prime Minister said:I can promise you that we will follow policies which will, over a period of time, bring down the foreign debt.He was asked:Over what time frame?He said:I can't put figures on it in months, I can't.In response to a further question by the journalist:Will that be your first priority if you win Government?he said:Our first priority as Peter Costello and I have made repeatedly clear, our first priority in Government economically will be to tackle the current account deficit.Haven't they done a wonderful job in carrying out their priority? What is the foreign debt? In March 1996, when they took power, net debt was $191 billion. In December last year it had risen to $236 billion, a growth of some $50 billion in a period of something like 2½ years—a wonderful carrying out of their commitment to reduce foreign debt; a wonderful performance on their priority. But what is the current account deficit? It has now risen from 4.7 per cent of GDP in March 1996 to five per cent in December last year, another significant performance on the priority commitments that they made to the Australian people.What did the Prime Minister go on to say that day in respect of the foreign debt? He said:. . . we've run up that $180 billion over the last decade because of bad economic policies—so he judged our economic policies on the basis of the foreign debt that we had run up—which have allowed us over a . . . period of time to import far more than we have exported, and because of our low savings we've borrowed the difference, we've borrowed from foreigners in order to buy the surplus imports, and that's why we have an enormous foreign debt that's feeding into our interest rate bill to our daily bills. The fact that in the last decade, the household debt in this country has gone from 45 to 65 cents of disposable income—it's one of the reasons why Australians feel a lot worse off . . .Let us have a look at what household debt is today. The Prime Minister said it was 65c of disposable income in September 1995. In December 1998 it is 90.45 per cent of disposable income—a significant jump over the 2½-year period of this government. I think a most telling point was an explanation of the Liberal Party in respect of that truck back in September 1995—(Time expired)15:29:004732Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—If we look at a Bible reference—they were wise and far-seeing people in those days—a prophet was always one except in his own country and was always acknowledged as such. I think that is very much true of the perspective of the Australian Labor Party when they view the performance of the Australian economy. They are blind to what is happening in their own country, and a lot of the rhetoric we hear today is reminiscent of that particular phobia or that past approach.Let us examine some of the articles appearing overseas that indicate how people overseas perceive Australia. I submit that they perceive Australia to be in a far healthier state, to be a more prosperous country, than what is portrayed here today. First of all, let us look at what the Singaporeans say, and I quote from the eminent Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, 28 April 1999:Australia hasn't just avoided the Asian-Pacific downturn, it has roared ahead. While the economies of most of its Asian trading partners contracted last year, Australia expanded 5.1 per cent, surpassing the US's 3.9 pace and making it one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world . . . 1999 is likely to be the eighth consecutive year of growth.That is certainly good news; the sort of diatribe we heard a few minutes ago is not. After a decade of unflattering comparisons with Asia's once booming economies, Australia is now basking in praise from the most unlikely sources, including the proud Singaporeans who had looked down on Australians as their poor cousins.Let us look at the performance of exporters, because it used to be said that Australia rides on the sheep's back. No more. The variety of Australian exports is expanding. We are going into new markets with new products. I come back to the eminent Wall Street Journal to see what it has to say:Australian exporters, which deregulation and privatisation had forced to become more nimble, diverted their wares from sinking Asian economies to healthier ones elsewhere. When the South Korean market went sour, for example, Qantas Airways deployed aircraft on the more promising Indian routes. As Indonesia's economic crash hampered sales of live cattle there, Australian producers began wooing buyers in Mexico and Libya. All told, Australia's sales of goods to Asia including Japan slid six per cent last year in value terms from 1997 while exports to the US and Europe climbed 34 and 42 per cent respectively. The total exports of goods and services rose in 1998 by a modest two per cent.We see there that overseas people view Australia in a very positive light.Australia's propensity to save will increase quite significantly with the passage of a number of bills, hopefully this month or next month, when 80 per cent of Australians will have a tax rate of 30 per cent or less. With such a higher disposable income there is a greater propensity to save. Foreign debt is made up of a number of components. There is government debt, of which Commonwealth debt is a declining proportion.I would like to draw the Senate's attention in this debate to an issue put forward by Jubilee 2000 which is asking some of the richer countries of the world to actually write off some of the debt of the Third World—those countries whose living standards are declining because of repatriation problems and the meeting of interest commitments. I commend that particular approach to all the wealthier countries around the world.Undoubtedly, Australia's current account deficit has been affected by lower export prices. We are all aware of the pressure under which some of our exporters are placed. This has been reflected in share prices. There has been pressure from reduced prices for exports of coal, iron ore and those sorts of things, but we have a strong domestic economy. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.473310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:4733462DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows:That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 462 citizens)473320FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow small businesses to be charged for timed local calls on data services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure, if implemented, will have an adverse effect on the profitability, development and growth of small businesses across Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognise that timed local calls on data services is an untenable proposition for small business. We call on the Howard Government to live up to its election promise to guarantee untimed local calls for small business in both voice and data services.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 20 citizens)4733193I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned demand the Australian Government implement regulation for the mandatory labelling of all food or food components which are genetically modified.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 19 citizens)4733176FX5 8O6Murphy Sen Shayne; O'Brien Sen KerryTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows that citizens of Tasmania think that the Government's Taxation Package, including the Goods and Services tax, does not provide sufficient information nor detail and hence is open to inequitable application during its implementation.Your petitioners ask/request that the Senate should not pass the legislation until the following questions are resolved fairly and equitable for the citizens of Tasmania:1. How will the Government ensure Tasmania is treated fairly in comparison to the more affluent and larger States? Tasmania, on a per capita basis, has the highest unemployment, lowest average weekly wage, the oldest population, the greatest number of people dependent on government income support and the most decentralised population of any State of Australia. The Government's model for estimating the cost of the GST does not allow for the different economic and social patterns between states.2. How will the government ensure families can afford good food which will be relatively more expensive in respect to `junk' foods whose price will decrease after the removal of sales tax? Tasmanians pay the highest costs for food in Australia and are among the worst health status population in Australia.3. How will the government ensure that organisations and charities can continue to provide the necessary community services and support to disadvantaged citizens? Community organisations and charities in Tasmania will face a double jeopardy from the implementation of the Tax Package. It is predicted that poverty in Tasmania will increase and more people will be seeking extra assistance. At the same time organisations will have a reduced capacity to meet those needs because of increased administrative costs associated with compliance and in many instances reduced revenue because of the application of the tax to such things as membership fees and fund raising.4. How will government ensure that service quality and scope of education, child care and health services can be maintained without increasing the costs of these services? The Government proposes that essential services such as education, child care and health will be GST Free. However, community based organisations offering these services will have increased costs arising from the extra administration and accounting requirements of the tax package.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 89 citizens)Senator O'Brien8O6Senator O'Brien(from 87 citizens)47331010000The PRESIDENTTo the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain members of the La Trobe University community points out to the Senate the detrimental effects that Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation will have on the Students of La Trobe University.Draws to the attention of the Senate:If VSU legislation is put in place it will mean the end to vital services provided by Student Organisations such as:Child CareStudent RepresentationAcademic AdvocacyClubs and SocietiesLegal ServiceSport and RecreationEntertainmentDr Kemp states that this legislation will `ensure that all students have the same freedoms on campus that they have off campus'. This is currently the case.Membership of these organisations is already voluntary in that students may choose to be a member or not.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to reject the VSU legislation.The PresidentUNKNOWNThe President(from 10 citizens)Petitions received.Notices4734473410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Before calling on notices, I remind senators of the new procedures relating to notices of motion and postponements adopted by the Senate on 29 April. Senators have the option of lodging their notices in writing at the table at the time for giving notices instead of giving them orally, and I encourage senators to save time by lodging their notices that way. Postponements of business must be made by lodging the signed notification before the time for postponements. They will then be announced by the Clerk at the time. Notification should be on the forms provided and lodged in the table sub-office before the sitting or at the table during the sitting.Senator Cooney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on the fairness, purpose, effectiveness and consis tency of right of entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation be extended to 30 September 1999.Senator Bartlett to move two sitting days after today:That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 October 1999:The operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, with particular reference to:(a) the adequacy of legal assistance provided to asylum seekers under the Federal Government's Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme;(b) the adequacy of a non-compellable, non-reviewable ministerial discretion to ensure that no person is forcibly returned to a country where they face torture or death;(c) whether Australia's treaty commitments to, and obligations under, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1984 United Nations (UN) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are capable of being met given that the fundamental principle of non-return to face torture or death is not present in domestic law nor subject to the rule of law;(d) the adequacy of current refugee determination procedures having regard to the role and function of the Refugee Review Tribunal in investigating asylum claims;(e) the importance of maintaining full judicial oversight of any administrative process that directly affects Australia's compliance with its international legal obligations;(f) the potential implications for the future operation of Australia's refugee policy and program following the enactment of the principle of providing temporary haven;(g) the recent case of the Chinese woman allegedly deported to China, despite pleas for protection, to face a forced abortion when 8½ months pregnant;(h) the circumstances in which the Australian Government decided to proceed with the deportation of Mr SE, despite being on notice that an application had been sent to the UN Committee Against Torture, and the circumstances in which the Australian Government decided to suspend the deportation proceedings in the case of Mr SE; (i) why cases such as the Chinese woman and that of Mr SE are not being picked up early enough by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Refugee Review Tribunal;(j) the accessibility of judicial review for impecunious asylum seekers, particularly since 1 July 1998 when the Commonwealth Legal Aid guidelines were amended to remove grants of aid for asylum seekers except in extremely limited circumstances;(k) the role and involvement of private contractors in removal processes; and(l) the processes which are in place for monitoring deportation cases once they have been returned to their country of origin.4735Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during the sittings. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 WINTER SITTINGSBROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (ONLINE SERVICES) BILL 1999PurposeTo amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to include on-line content regulation.Reasons for urgencyPassage of the legislation in the Winter sittings is necessary to meet growing concerns about the potential exposure to children of classified material on the Internet, particularly given the increasing access to on-line services in the Australian community.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts)Senator Margetts to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) was signed in the week beginning 2 May 1999, (ii) despite claims by the Commonwealth and State Governments that 12 new national parks have been created, 16 already approved national parks, nature reserves and conservation parks have been either revoked or gutted under the RFA, (iii) half of the best remaining tall karri and yellow tingle old-growth forest has been targeted for destruction under the RFA, (iv) most of the 151 000 hectares of `new reserves' announced under the RFA are either regrowth forests or remote and non-commercial forest or woodland that the industry does not want to log, (v) many heritage-listed old-growth forests, such as Giblett, Jane, Sharpe and Peak, will be destroyed as a result of the RFA, and (vi) the RFA will have a negative impact on employment opportunities and on the regional economies in the south west of Western Australia; and(b) expresses its outrage that the RFA has been signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Premier of Western Australia (Mr Court) contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Western Australians, including 80 per cent of the submissions from the public to the RFA process.4735Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Boswell, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector on the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia, be extended to 30 August 1999.I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement in relation to the notice of motion.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector was appointed on 10 December 1998.The resolution of appointment provided for a reporting date of no later than 6 months after the resolution was agreed to; that is, 10 June 1999. However, membership of the Committee was not finalised until 15 February 1999 and the Committee did not hold its first meeting until 16 February, effectively putting the Committee two months behind schedule.The Committee has received a large number of submissions. The first round of public hearings in capital cities commenced in April 1999 and indicated high level public interest in the inquiry.Because of the current parliamentary sitting pattern, it is not possible to conduct further public hearings until July 1999, further delaying the schedule. It is proposed to hold these hearings in parts of rural and regional Australia.Because of the importance of the inquiry, the complexity of the issues involved and the initial delay in getting under way, it is therefore necessary to seek an extension of time to report.Business47364736Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 11 May 1999, be from 2 pm to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 13 May 1999, be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment and that;(a) the routine of business from 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 11 May 1998 shall be: (i) Budget statement and documents 1999-2000, and (ii) adjournment; and(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm on Thursday, 13 May 1998 shall be: (i) Budget Statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and (ii) adjournment; and(c) The question for the adjournment of the Senate not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.Notices47364736Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 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, postponed till 24 May 1999. Business of the Senate order of the day no. 1, relating to the proposed reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 22 June 1999.General business notice of motion no. 136 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, postponed till 13 May 1999.General business notice of motion no. 206 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to indigenous education, postponed till 12 May 1999.Miscellaneous4736Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate calls on the Government to ensure the right of Australia's indigenous peoples to be educated in their own languages, at least where such languages remain live.Committees473647364736Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—as amended by leave—agreed to: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, and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 and a related bill.47364736Motion (by Senator Calvert, 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 12 May 1999. Documents47374737473710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General:Report No. 38 of 1998-99—Preliminary Study: Management of Commonwealth Budgetary ProcessesReport No. 39 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—National Aboriginal Health Strategy-Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.The documents were presented to the temporary chairs of committees—Senator McKiernan and Senator Calvert—on 5 and 10 May 1999 respectively. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the documents was authorised.Committees47374737473715:42:004737Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1999-2000. I also seek leave to incorporate the report in Hansard.Leave granted.The report read as follows—Report on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1999-2000.In accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Auditor-General Act 1997, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has considered the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office for the 1999-2000 financial year.The Committee is able to advise the Parliament that it is satisfied that the draft budget estimates submitted by the Auditor-General to the Committee on 24 March 1999 are sufficient to enable the Auditor-General to properly exercise his functions and powers under the Act, covering financial statements, performance audits, and audit services.In his submission the Auditor-General noted that the ANAO's total cash budget appropriation in 1998-99 was $53.8 million and that no Additional Estimates funding had been sought. 1998-9 budget allocations were used to fund strategically important projects such as restructuring, computer replacements and enhancements to the ANAO's Financial Management and Human Resource Management Systems.The Auditor General told the Committee that there were a number of significant changes to the environment in which the 1999-2000 Budget and forward estimates were constructed, the most important of these being the implementation of an accrual budgeting framework for the Commonwealth to take effect with the 1999-2000 Budget. The ANAO has for some years been costing its products on an accrual basis and is well placed to move to an accrual based budget. The ANAO has also implemented, with effect from 1 July 1998, a new Financial Management Information System to support the revised financial management framework.The implementation of accrual budgeting is accompanied by the introduction of an Outcomes and Outputs structure which will replace the existing program structures. The new framework places a particular focus on the outputs, or goods and services produced by agencies, and the links between them and the desired outcomes of Government activity. The ANAO's outputs are defined as follows:1. Performance Audit Services2. Information Support Services3. Assurance Audit Services.The key elements of ANAO's business as summarised in the Auditor-General's submission are:. Running costs account for the significant majority of ANAO resources;. Property operating expenses, covered by a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Finance, are included in running costs;. under the accrual budgeting environment, the previous system of annual appropriations for agencies will be replaced by appropriations for Departmental items and appropriations for Administered items;. for the ANAO, future appropriations will, for the most part relate to Departmental items. The Auditor-General's salary and allowances will continue to be funded by the special appropriation under the Auditor-General Act.The total budget allocation being sought for 1999-2000 is $53.6 million.In terms of output groups, the Performance Audit Services Output Group estimates were for $18.7 million, the Information Support Services Output Group estimates were for $1.7 million and the Assurance Audit Services Output Group estimates were for $26.6 million. Although the Auditor-General understands that carryovers will not form part of the budget parameters beyond 1999-2000, it is proposed, in line with existing practice, to maintain a strategic reserve fund which is needed to assist in the management of the ANAO's business.The process by which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has begun to fulfil its enhanced responsibilities under the Auditor-General Act, and the Financial Management and Accountability Act has continued to evolve during this year. It is only by the experience of deliberating on matters like the appointment of the Independent Auditor, and the approval of ANAO's draft budget estimates that the practical extent of the Committee's powers of scrutiny can be defined in a way which enhances the powers of the Parliament to keep government accountable.(signed)Bob Charles MPChairmanBills4738r732Billsr729Billsr731473815:43:004738Calvert, 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 Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and two related bills, together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I advise the Senate that the report has only just been sent to the printer and copies are not expected to be available until late tonight. An electronic copy of the report will, however, be available on the Internet shortly.Bills4738s213473815:44:004738Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I present the report of the Select Committee on Information Technologies on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, together with submissions, Hansard record and minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In moving this motion, I report to the Senate that the report has only just been sent to the printer and copies are not expected to be available until tomorrow morning. However, an electronic copy of the report will be available on the Internet very shortly.I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies entitled Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 which looks at legislation to regulate online services. Schedule 2 of the bill makes a consequential amendment to the Crimes Act 1914. The committee held four days of public hearings and took evidence from 33 witnesses, resulting in more than 320 pages of transcript. The committee also received 104 submissions on the legislation covering industry, interest groups and the community.There was overwhelming support from witnesses that what is regulated offline should also have a regulatory framework online. The legislation will operate as a three-way partnership between parents, government and industry. This partnership was put very succinctly by a representative of Young Media Australia, Ms Toni Jupe, when she told the committee:We agree that parents ought to take a greater degree of responsibility but, as with other forms of media, we also believe that there should be a triangular partnership on this matter between the Government, industry and the community.The legislation extends the existing system of classifying material from film and broadcasting to the Internet. Such consistency will ensure that community standards are protected as widely as possible. It provides a clear legislative framework for the protection of all Australians from illegal and highly offensive material.The committee believes the government's approach accommodates emerging technologies and recognises the dynamic nature of the electronic industry, recognising that what is not possible today may in fact be possible tomorrow. The range of witnesses who appeared before the committee reflected the vigorous debate which has been taking place within the Internet community about this legislation and this has mainly covered three broad themes: that the legislation in some way restricts freedom of speech; that it is imposing technical restrictions on the Internet which will slow access speeds and destroy electronic commerce; and that it dismisses the fact that the responsibility for protecting children from harmful Internet content should rest with government, parents and the industry.Evidence received from both industry and community representatives largely addressed these concerns. Firstly, the Australian media and broadcast mediums already operate in a regulated environment. There is no absolute freedom of speech. A large amount of printed material is also subject to classification. This legislation simply extends the existing system of classification from film and television to the Internet. It will ensure that the community will be protected in as broad a sense as possible.There was no evidence presented to the committee that paedophilia or sexually explicit or violent material should be freely available on the Internet. In fact, Ms Fiona Patten from the Eros Foundation told the committee, `If material is restricted to adults in any other medium, it should be restricted to adults on the Net.'Concerns that the legislation imposes technical restrictions on the Net which would slow access speeds and interfere with electronic commerce were also resolved by expert industry witnesses. Mr Alan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of Clairview Internet Pty Ltd, told the committee:One issue that was brought up in the CSIRO report that I found interesting was the comments of how e-commerce could be hurt by such blocking. Whilst it is true that blocking will hurt e-commerce sites that co-host pornographic material with their sites, I think the worry of it will be almost negligible.The committee heard from Dr Philip McCrea, one of the co-authors of the June 1998 CSIRO report, that filtering is technically possible. He said:When done by backbone service providers possibly packet level filtering would be the most appropriate. When done at the ISP level, then probably filtering against `black lists' would be the most appropriate.Dr McCrea told the committee:The second approach recognises that it is possible to provide some sort of filtering by an ISP. Our conclusion was that this is probably the most effective form of filtering.Young Media Australia pressed upon the committee the need for parents and guardians to understand that this media is unregulated and something needs to be done about it. They said:We feel that we represent the broad parent community that feels that it is not really across the more technical aspects of some of these issues, yet they are being told on a daily basis that virtually all the responsibility for doing something about the protection of their children from any harmful effects of the technology is entirely their responsibility.This legislation does not remove the responsibility of parents, guardians or individuals to manage their and their children's use of the Internet. In fact, the committee agrees with this and welcomes the government's approach to encourage parents to utilise the existing filtering software and suitable search engines.America Online presented evidence to the committee that, of their 17 million members worldwide, 53 per cent are families and of that group 82 per cent already use the parental control systems which America Online offers. Dr Ritz, America Online's business affairs director said:We think that there is a very strong argument that these parental controls, if they are made easy, do work and parents can use them.The government's approach to the resolution of children gaining access to inappropriate online material does not rely just on this legislation because there is a community consensus that wider community education is an important part of the framework to regulate online services. The committee took the view that this form of education was equally as important as the package of measures put forward by the government. Of course at the end of the day, extensive community education does not represent a total solution to the problem of inappropriate material being available online.The committee welcomes the establishment of the proposed community advisory committee, which will be an important adjunct to the ABA and will, in the committee's opinion, give this important element of the government's package the level of priority it deserves. The committee recognised that emerging technologies will always entail people finding ways around technical restrictions but felt that the overall success of the measures should take into account general compliance rather than simply measure universal compliance.The committee has recommended that several areas of the legislation be further investigated and commented upon. These include the lack of a specific reference to technical feasibility in the legislation; the practical difficulties of complying with `take down' orders, for example, on non-working days; further explanation of the differing roles of states and territories with the Commonwealth; and the need to clarify the responsibility of Internet content providers. However, the committee recommended that the legislation be supported. I commend the report to the Senate.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Before you start, Senator Bishop, I understand there is an agreement that each speaker will have eight minutes and that at some stage a motion will be moved to extend the debate by eight minutes.15:52:004740Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition wishes to place a few points on the public record concerning the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , which is the subject of a report tabled today. The shadow minister for communications made three key points in respect of the referral of this bill to the IT committee for investigation. Firstly, he said that the opposition supported a workable and feasible regulation of Internet content which placed realistic roadblocks in the way of children being exposed to content unacceptable by community standards. Secondly, he said that the government's announcement was duplicitous because it deliberately sought to create the impression that the government's announced measure would solve the problem of unacceptable content, when the reality is—backed by CSIRO advice and industry analysis—that it is not feasible to regulate such content as over 90 per cent of offensive content comes from offshore. Thirdly, he suggested in his press release that the sensible public policy approach to Internet content is to empower parents and schools, particularly by way of information about end use filter devices.The bill was referred to the select committee, public hearings have been conducted and the committee is reporting today. Debate on the bill is listed on the Notice Paper to commence this Thursday in the Senate. A brief description of the legislation is appropriate so that we understand the matter that we are discussing. Firstly, the legislation seeks to regulate content on the Internet through amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act. Secondly, the legislation introduces a content rating regime for the Internet analogous to that in existence for broadcast and narrow cast technology and requires the industry to develop an industry code of conduct to address the issues. Thirdly, the legislation empowers the Australian Broadcasting Authority to oversee regulation and adherence to the code and to develop an ABA standard by 1 March 2000 if an industry code is not ratified by 1 January that year.Fourthly, the legislation effects a process by which the ABA, on complaint about material, can require an Internet service provider to take down X or refuse classification rated material hosted onshore and to take all reasonable steps to prevent access to X or refuse classification rated material hosted offshore. In respect of R classified onshore content, the ABA must be satisfied that restricted access arrangements—PIN, password or age—are in place and no proposal is made in respect of offshore classified R material. The bill specifies time frames for the take-down process and penalties for non-compliance. The bill does not apply to live Internet content such as news groups, chat channels or email.Initial industry reactions to the legislation can only be described as hostile. Major criticisms have included the following: firstly, that content regulation is inappropriate for the Internet medium and, as a matter of principle, there should be no restrictions at all on Internet content; secondly, that the proposals in respect of offshore content regulation are unworkable; thirdly, that the proposals would place an onerous economic burden on Internet service providers; and, fourthly, that the proposals would reduce or destroy Australia's attractiveness as an Internet e-commerce jurisdiction.Industry reaction to the detail of the legislation during the select committee hearings was hostile. In particular, detailed criticisms made at public hearings and via written submissions have included that a 24 hour take-down period for onshore content is far too short, that the penalty regime is excessive and punitive, and that the legislation does not expressly specify what `all reasonable steps' are required to be taken in respect of offshore content.The opposition has considered a range of the submissions made to the committee, and we express publicly the following concerns. Firstly, the legislation is not being dealt with on its merits but is linked to a 1 July 1999 timetable which has caused indecent haste and inadequate and less than thorough consideration of the technical aspects and the merit of the bill. Secondly, we regard with sadness but with ongoing anger the duplicity of the government's presentation to the general public of the effectiveness of the regime to control offshore content. Thirdly, there is the unworkability of the proposals and the ease with which they can be bypassed by a range of individuals; and an acknowledgment, but not unthinking acceptance, of the narrow casting classification regime in respect of the Internet medium, together with an acknow ledgment that this may well have to be revisited in the future, particularly in the light of whatever changes convergence of technology brings.The Commonwealth needs to pursue international arrangements in respect of Internet content and regulation. We suggest that the real solution to the mischief at hand—being end use empowerment—is extensive education and information campaigns for parents and schools in respect of the Internet and end use filter devices.When the bill comes before the Senate for consideration later this week or in the next fortnight, the opposition will be presenting a range of significant amendments. These amendments will provide, firstly, that the 24 hour take-down period be extended to 48 hours and apply only after a process of real and effective notification of a breach; secondly, that the proposed penalty regime be reduced; thirdly, that all reasonable steps be expressly defined to include end user empowerment, information provision and advice on culturally appropriate end use filter devices, and that such reasonable steps be technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective; that the Australian Broadcasting Authority take into account the public interest in not requiring steps which would reduce national Internet capacity; and that the ABA also take into account the public interest in ensuring that Australia remains an attractive Internet e-commerce investment jurisdiction by not requiring measures which would unreasonably degrade Internet capacity or utility.15:59:004741Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Before discussing some of the important conclusions that are in the Democrats' minority report, I would like to briefly touch on the process leading up to the tabling of this report before the Senate and to put forward concerns that have been raised a number of times. Indeed, the last speaker pointed out some of the opposition's concerns about the haste with which this process has been pursued.Senators would be aware that the minister announced the government's proposals to regulate the Internet in mid-March, and it is still unclear as to whether or not the government intends this legislation to be its entire response to the recommendations of previous Senate committees which have addressed these issues. That is one area out of two where I agree with Senator Harradine's minority report—of what I have just read. He mentions that `privacy considerations are of utmost importance to our committee', and I would concur with that. Secondly, I think there are many outstanding recommendations from previous Senate committees which have not been addressed. I may not necessarily agree with some of those recommendations, but we are still waiting to find out if the government intends this as its entire response.Turning now to the process, in mid-April the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 was introduced into the Senate. Two days later, on 23 April, the government moved that the bill be referred to the recently re-established Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. I reiterate the concern of the Democrats and many others about the timing and manner of the government's investigation into this bill—it was unnecessarily hurried. While I do not doubt the urgency or the importance of the issue of Internet content regulation, I am concerned that, because the process was so speedy, it was not able to comprehensively address many of the issues raised by the legislation.The Democrats have said many times that we are concerned that the reference of that legislation to the Senate select committee has been used a mechanism for justifying the legislation. There has not been adequate time to develop or pursue some of the more intricate, technical and other issues that were raised in those committee hearings.The Democrats have carefully examined the bill and have prepared a minority report which addresses, we think, some of the significant issues that the government has downplayed. We want to make it quite clear that we believe the regime envisaged by this bill is both unworkable and undesirable. We have two broad areas of concern with this legislation as it has been presented to the Senate. The first of these relates to the significant technical and operational concerns with the proposal which could render the regime unworkable.The second concern relates to undesirable aspects of the legislation. These include the failure to address civil liberties concerning privacy and the freedom of speech and expression, the creation of broad discretions and uncertain law enforcement provisions, the different treatment of material in different media, the almost certain adverse impact on the Internet industry in Australia, the likely impact on the growth of the information economy in Australia, and the failure to address concerns about the likelihood of inappropriate and inadvertent blocking of materials and related issues.The bill envisages different systems for content hosted in Australia and content hosted overseas. The primary reason for this distinction is obviously jurisdictional, but the distinction is invisible to most Internet users. I will address the provisions dealing with Australian-hosted content shortly, but I wish to draw specific attention to the technical problems involved in blocking content hosted overseas. Firstly, I note that even some of the world's most restrictive governments have abandoned attempts to engage in wholesale blocking of Internet content. Most recently, the Malaysian government announced that they would cease Internet censorship. In that country one of the effects of Internet censorship was to prevent the distribution of materials concerning political opposition.The committee heard evidence from Dr Philip McCrae about the technical issues involved in blocking Internet content. He presented a report on the technical feasibility of blocking technologies, originally commissioned by the National Office of Information Economy. That report raised many serious concerns about performance degradation and the possibility that blocking schemes can be easily circumvented. Neither of these concerns can be dismissed lightly, certainly not in light of the evidence presented to the committee.The bill also contains a number of undesirable provisions. Some of the more significant issues fall under the general heading of civil liberties—in particular, I am referring to restrictions on the freedom to publish and to view materials which may be legal in other media. Witnesses referred to the general chilling effect on Australian content creators, who are obviously going to be fairly wary of creating content when it is not clear which materials may or may not be restricted. Concerns have been raised that this bill would be likely to have a significant impact on the creation of all types of content in Australia. The Democrats do not believe that the government has fulfilled the onus to justify further restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression in Australia.Serious concerns also arise from the broad discretions and somewhat arbitrary enforcement provisions in the bill—in particular, the so-called anti-avoidance provisions, which refer to the prohibition of substantially similar content. They would appear to require Internet service providers to be involved in almost editorial decisions about the content being hosted on their servers. The two-year rule, which prevents reclassification of materials for two years, could be used in conjunction with the anti-avoidance provisions and generic descriptions of material to prevent or prohibit excessive amounts of content.The government has not addressed either the direct costs or the likely economic impact of the proposed legislation, which we find absolutely extraordinary. We have heard repeatedly from the government that it is friendly towards electronic commerce, yet it has remained silent on the economic implications of the proposals before us. We think it is outrageous to suggest that these proposals would have no economic impact, and there was very little evidence before the committee of the possible costs of implementing such proposals. But many witnesses indicated that the direct costs and broader economic impact were likely to be detrimental to the rapid growth of both Internet use and the information economy.While recommending the use of blocking technologies as a compulsory part of the content control regime, the government has failed to address some significant concerns with the operation of filtering and blocking tools. As I have indicated to the Senate on previous occasions, the problems of inappropriate and inadvertent blocking of materials must be addressed, and submissions to the committee indicated significant concerns with the blocking of materials relating to the safe use of drugs, safe sex, gay and lesbian issues, feminism, anti-hate speech sites and many other types of material, including political material. I seek leave to incorporate the last four paragraphs of my comments so I do not take the time of the Senate.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Indeed, recent analysis of one of the blocking technologies presented to the committee has demonstrated the inadvertent blocking of very large numbers of web sites hosted on the same servers as some less appropriate materials, in one case blocking access to the National Party web site.It is crucial that the operation of content control in a liberal democracy is open and accountable. We certainly need to ensure that the value systems and the decisions made in blocking content are explicit.These concerns, and others, have been addressed in the Democrats' report.The Democrats would prefer an approach to the regulation of Internet content based on the empowerment and education of users. We would also wish to encourage an understanding of the responsibility of adults supervising Internet use by young people.16:07:004743Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be quite brief because the previous speakers have covered much of the terrain I would cover, except to say, however, that it is quite untoward that, once again, the Senate is fast-forward on moves to ban sexually explicit material available to Australians without proper consultation with the community and without proper time for deliberation in this place.It does not miss my notice that the government today is announcing a clampdown on so-called sex chat lines advertised in Australia and apparently under frequent use. What a coincidence that that is happening on budget day! I think that many Australians would want to have input on that as well. What we are seeing here is a breakout of censorship, a rapid grab of the rights of Australians to see, hear or tune into material that they think is appropriate for themselves. Any society has to be concerned about the impact of material on young people, and I am second to none on that.What I find particularly repugnant, however, is the increasing violence; in particular, the Americanisation of our culture—the bringing of the culture of violence into Australia without restriction. That is a far greater priority than what people may do, see or say about sexual explicitness, which is not of the same order. Here we have this move to be prurient about sexually explicit material and an outbreak of it at a time when we are moving to consider the GST and the sale of Telstra. I have no doubt that Senator Harradine will have more to say about this in a moment, but I think we have to call a spade a spade here. The government has this on the agenda because it is wanting to influence Senator Harradine's vote and Senator Colston's vote on the GST, on the sale of Telstra and on the general list of government priorities which we have before us before 1 July.Whatever else one might think about this debate, that is not the right way to meet the priorities of Australians as a whole. There are very critical matters to be dealt with by the Senate which are being put aside to get through this censorship agenda. Very critical matters are being put aside by a government agenda to trade the restriction on what adult Australians might see or hear for its other agendas. As I said before, it is up to the government to be at least transparent about this. I again call for the government to release the minutes of the meetings which have been held between the Independents, the various ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister in the preceding months so that we may see what the agenda has been. I doubt it is an agenda which has been overtly one of trading, although that is the result we are seeing in here.I find it quite remarkable that there is such a licence for advertising sexual services and so on throughout the media in Australia— some of it illegal—to the gain of the big media empires in this country. There seems to be no crackdown under the law on those things, yet we have this move to censor what Australians might see or hear on the Internet or through other modalities.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—You want to clean up the Net, don't you?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The problem is that there has not been proper consideration given to this. Through you, Madam Deputy President, to Senator Ferris: I do want to see Australia have good regulation of illegal activities. That is why my priority is, for example, to get up an inquiry into the impact of gambling on the Internet, which is going to be far more injurious to many Australian families than whatever non-violent material—sexually explicit as it may be—is available on the Internet. The priorities, however, are not around that way. We are dealing here basically with sexually explicit material. It should be getting far greater analysis and input from the Australian people than it is getting in the truncated, politically expedient program that we are dealing with here today.16:11:004744Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—First of all, I will deal very briefly with the last contribution. I feel rather sorry for Senator Brown. He has missed the point completely. He is either following or leading some of the narrow-minded, unintelligent members of the media by constantly suggesting that certain interests are to get my vote on this, that or the other. I challenge him and any of those small-minded members of the media to point to one case where I have not dealt with a matter completely on its merits. I am getting sick and tired of that sort of approach. I ignore it now, but I do not ignore it when it comes from a colleague who should have more responsibility than some of the unintelligent—I was going to say `ratbag'—reporters around the place. Mind you, most of the media are not into that, but some of them are.If the government is trying to get my vote on this particular matter, it is really going about it the wrong way. I have for many years been interested in this particular subject, and I believe that other senators and other members of parliament have also because it has been of concern to the people of Australia, particularly to parents. If enacted, this legislation will be an improvement on the current largely unregulated environment. Thus, I believe it does deserve the support of the parliament.I do not stand here representing the commercial exploiters of the online industry—those who are trying to make a fast buck by the transmission of hardcore pornography and violence. That is what we are talking about here: those who are trying to exploit the online environment for their own purposes—that is, to make big bucks. I, and I believe others on the committee who are supporting this legislation, stand here for the ordinary people of Australia and, indeed, for the genuine online businesses.The commercial online industry has for at least six years been aware of growing concerns within the community and in the parliament that an unregulated environment could be exploited by those transmitting extremely violent or pornographic material into Australian homes. It has done very little to address those concerns. However, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 falls considerably short of recommendations made by the Senate committee and its predecessor. For example, the first recommendation of the committee in its November 1995 report was that it should be an offence to use a computer service to transmit, obtain possession of, demonstrate, advertise or request the transmission of material equivalent to RC, R and X categories. In essence, this was repeated in the committee's recommendation in June 1997.The bill does not follow the recommendations with respect to either the content to be regulated or the method of regulation. The bill is designed to generally operate on the basis of industry codes or, in the absence thereof, standards, and on a complaints procedure to be supervised by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The question arises as to whether such a proven passive regulator as the ABA is the most appropriate institution to do this. Only time will tell.An area which will need to come under close scrutiny is the ready accessibility of graphically violent interactive online computer games. Available figures indicate their growing popularity amongst teenagers, children and young adults, and I believe that is a matter which is of considerable concern around the community. It cannot reasonably be denied that Internet service providers and Internet content hosts and creators have an obligation to the end users of their services. In my view, these obligations should include, amongst other priorities, the right of users to be properly informed as to content labelling and to the identification and removal of unsolicited mail. They are also entitled to expect technical standards of excellence and properly accredited filtering technologies, including within the carriage infrastructure. It may well be that Internet service providers should be licensed and that licence conditions should apply. That is not in this legislation, but surely, unless there is proper cooperation from the industry with this legislation, the only answer is to impose licence fees and sufficient fees which will enable the matter to be carried forward.Issues of privacy are of very special interest to our committee, and last year the committee conducted a number of hearings on the issue of privacy. It was assisted by the views expressed and information provided by the industry and by users. The draft report from Senator Jeannie Ferris, our distinguished chairperson, is now being considered.Finally, parents should not be lulled into a sense of false security by the passage of this bill. Clearly, parents and others responsible for children will need to exercise vigilance and be empowered to do so through a massive education campaign and free technological support. This, in conjunction with an effective regulatory environment when it comes, will ultimately ensure an environment in which computer use will grow and exploitation diminish.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4746r703Billsr667Bills4746r666Billsr702Billsr699Billsr698Billsr664Billsr660Billsr658Billsr657Billsr701Billsr663Billsr659Billsr700Billsr661Billsr754Billsr761Billsr765Billsr763Billsr764Billsr757Billsr760Billsr758Billsr759Billsr756Billsr7624746A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) BILL 1998Consideration resumed from 30 April and 21 April.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering amendments Nos 6 and 7 on sheet FA209, moved by Senator Kemp. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.16:22:004746Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I hope that Senator Cook is due in here shortly. I have a question to the minister. Minister, we were concerned with the issues of gambling and casinos. There has been a great deal of press and media coverage, as you know, of this issue. It will be helpful for us all if you re-explained some of the fundamental principles that you have been spelling out with the gambling and lottery amendments.The starting point for all of us is the document you have referred to several times: Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system, the ANTS document, on page 98. I will go through it all the way, so that you can understand our problem with it. In that document, you state:Gambling and lottery activities will be included in the tax base.That is very proper.The GST will apply to the operator's margin of these activities, not to the prizes paid out.The operator's margin, as I understand it, is the gross value or the gross margin of all transactions for the reporting period—in other words, not an individual transaction, as it would be at a supermarket checkout. In the case of the gambling casinos area, it is all the transactions for the reporting period. You then go on to say: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 in retailing is often referred to as a net margin. It is gross take versus payouts, and you have net margin before costs. You then state:However, operators cannot always adjust their prices because these are often set by the rules of the game or by State government legislation relating to levels of pay-out. As the States already tax gambling highly there may need to be corresponding reductions in State gambling taxes.That is the next point. I think you have made it clear in your public announcements that it is the states which will individually and at their discretion take decisions in these matters. In other words, there is not a Commonwealth agreement with them on this issue, as there is in other areas. If I have misunderstood you, I would like you to come back on that one. You go on:This will be possible because, under the proposed arrangements, the States will receive the proceeds of the GST, including the GST on gambling.It is when we move to the issue at hand, which is the issue of high rollers and how their transactions will be dealt with, that we get into some difficulty. Returning to the first proposition—that is, that all transactions will be counted to arrive at the net margin—that means that, if you take 100 gamblers on the bottom floor of the casino and they are playing Keno, roulette, blackjack or whatever other gambling games there are, on each of those games there is a different margin. Minister, are you happy for me to continue?16:26:004747Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Could I made a brief comment in order to assist the debate? Thank you for your courtesy, Senator Murray. I have noted the questions that you have put down. The amendment before the chair is on no tax invoices for gambling supplies. Last week there was a great deal of public interest in this, but I think that what you are referring to actually refers to another amendment which has been moved in relation to gambling and which will come on later.It seems to me that, in order to speed the journey—and I am not seeking to avoid the debate; in fact we have all had a lot of debate on this issue, and you have raised some points which I am happy to respond to—probably it is time to return to the amendment which is truly before the chair and discuss that particular amendment. When we get on to this issue on the margin and your concerns about high rollers, that is actually applicable to a different amendment. The amendment we are dealing with relates to tax invoices.I would suggest to the chamber that it would probably help order the debate if we dealt with these matters in an appropriate sequence. Last week, because there was a degree of enthusiasm about it, I recognised that interest and the debate was allowed to continue. But now I would ask the Senate chamber, because we have a great journey to run with these amendments, and it seems more appropriate, Acting Deputy Chairman Watson, if we could essentially try to confine ourselves to the amendment before the chair. The matters which you wish to explore can easily be raised under the appropriate amendment—which, as I said, comes later on down the running sheet.16:29:004748Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—What I am seeking to do here, Minister, is to affect the climate in which all the gambling amendments will be reviewed. I am really continuing from the previous debate. The reason I do that is that if we can clearly understand the government's thinking with respect to the way in which these transactions are dealt with, I think it therefore enables what you would probably describe as relatively technically amendments in 6 and 7 to be dealt with within an understanding of the overall framework. So with the discretion of the chair—and I have just one question to complete my introduction—I would look for the indulgence of the Senate and the committee in terms of what has already preceded us to settle down some of these issues. That is my motive. If the chair is content with that, I will continue on that basis.16:30:004748Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No-one questions your motive or goodwill in seeking to do this. All I am saying is that we had a lot of debate on the last occasion we were all happily here. We also had a very extensive debate on this at Senate estimates in which a great deal of information was further tendered. As I said, I think these are separate issues.We are dealing now with tax invoices. It is my preference that we deal with amendments in order. What I do not want to do is have a debate now on the so-called high-roller issue, which takes up another swag of time, then get to the amendment this actually applies to and then run the whole debate again. We have been in this chamber now for about 35 hours and we are rushing towards a record debate on a bill. It is pretty clear that we will exceed all other bills. I think we have to get a procedure in place. The public expects us to deal with this in a sensible fashion.I am not resisting the questions, but my experience and your experience in this will always be that answers lead to further questions and suddenly we have absorbed another swag of time which does not relate specifical ly to the somewhat technical amendment which is now before the chair. It was a courtesy that was extended last week. We all recognised that this was an issue that there was some public interest in, so the debate was allowed to run fairly free and wide. Having recognised that and then having gone into an estimates process where there was another very extensive debate, we should deal with this at the time when it is appropriate to deal with it under the appropriate amendment which has caused concern to you and some others. I put that forward simply as a matter of proper ordering of business, not to resist any comments or answers to questions which you are seeking.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Senator Murray, the chair could help. The amendment referred to is on page 11 of the running sheet.16:33:004748Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I understand that, Mr Chairman, and I will of course be guided by the chair, but my last question really is absolutely germane to the way in which these amendments and subsequent amendments are to be judged. It seems to me that the government is proposing dealing with customers of casinos differently according to the class of the customer. What I mean by that, in a straightforward approach to tax, is that the government—if I understand them correctly, which is why I asked the question—have grouped all the customers together as one class of transactions to arrive at the net margin. But when dealing with the high roller it seems to me that they are proposing dealing with each individual transaction.If I can draw the distinction with the supermarket, it would be equivalent to dealing with each person coming through the supermarket below $100 individually and then everybody above $100 you might be dealing with together. If I misunderstand the government, then I need to know so, because what I am seeking is that the same method by which customers of casinos are to be dealt with in tax terms applies regardless of the amount of money being bet. I think I fully understand the grouping provision of the ANTS proposal whereby you take, as I gave the example, 100 betting patrons together and you arrive at their net margin, regardless of the fact that that margin may differ because one is playing blackjack, one is playing keno and one is playing roulette. It is the overall take less the payout which means the net margin, but my understanding of the high-roller approach is that each individual transaction is to be dealt with so that this high-roller patron playing blackjack will be dealt with on his own and that high-roller patron playing some other game of chance will in turn be dealt with on their own. That is the straightforward taxation principle I want to be reassured on with respect to these and every other subsequent gambling amendment. That is why I bring it up now: because it is relevant, I think, to the way in which these amendments are to be judged.16:35:004749Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make it clear that the government is not distinguishing between classes of gamblers. The rebates will be taken off the gross gambling margin and the casino will calculate only one gambling margin for its operations for a particular period. So I think your concern was that somehow this was going to treat high rollers in a different fashion. As I said, we need to work out what is the actual proper margin, and the proper margin is one which is less rebates which are paid. We can get into this in detail in the debate on the amendment which will be moved later. I hope that provides you with a degree of comfort in relation to the amendment which is before us.16:37:004749Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is the first brace of gambling amendments to the package of GST bills. Minister, given the way in which the debate in the chamber has just gone—that is, procedurally—there seems to be an acceptance that we will deal with the high-roller amendments that the government proposes to the GST legislation when we arrive at them in the pack and not under this heading.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That is not the way I would describe them, but I understand what you are saying.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is what I understood you to say, and it seems that that is a point of view that is accepted by at least Senator Murray. Before we move to the substantive nature of the amendments before the chair now, perhaps I should say something about the high-roller amendments which will put you in a position to answer questions when we do arrive at the other high-roller amendments.I want to draw the minister's attention to a report in the West Australian newspaper of last Friday—I cannot distinguish the page but I think it is page 12. It has the headline `Court firm on casino GST stance'—that is, the Premier, Richard Court. I will quote selectively from the report. You will no doubt turn up the whole thing so I am not trying to mislead you with my selective quotes. Starting with the first paragraph, it states:Burswood Casino will not be granted any State compensation if the Howard Government fails to get goods and services tax concessions for high-roller gamblers passed through the Senate, according to Premier Richard Court.That is the opening paragraph. The report goes on to discuss the whole issue of what the state government will do and further states:Mr Court told the Legislative Assembly he did not believe the GST would affect revenue received by the State Government from Burswood.The article quotes Mr Court as saying:"Now I appreciate that there are some difficulties in the way the legislation is going through the Parliament."He goes on:"But in the balancing that takes place to make sure that the States have their revenues protected, we do not foresee any problems."When we come to the high-roller amendments, in chief—if I can describe them as that—the minister's explanation, up to this point, has been that if the Senate defeats the high-roller amendments it will be up to the state governments to make the adjustments. At least one state government, if the Premier is to be believed, is saying that they will not make the adjustment. I repeat what the state government said:But in the balancing that takes place to make sure that the states have their revenues protected, we do not foresee any problems. That would suggest that they will not make an adjustment—that there will be no diminution to state revenues. The point of view—I will not describe it as a principle; I think that is a terrible notion—that the federal government has accepted from the Casino Association, when it lobbied the government to include these amendments, is not shared at state level by the West Australian state government.I understood you to say, and I would have to check the Hansard record, that this was a matter of a federal-state agreement and that you assumed or you presumed that if it was not done at federal level it would be done at state level. I take this opportunity to draw your attention to it, Minister, because when we come to the high-roller amendments I will have a series of questions for you on that matter, and I do not want you to be caught unawares. They will be serious questions and we will be intent on pursuing serious answers to them when we get to that point.I will proceed now to the amendments that are before the chair at the moment. One of those is government amendment No. 7—the seventh of 128 amendments to your own legislation, Minister, on the GST. Amendment No. 7 says:. . . after clause 126-32, insert:126-33 Tax invoices are not required for gambling supplies(1) You are not required to issue a *tax invoice for a *taxable supply that you make that is solely a *gambling supply.(2) This section has effect despite section 29-70 (which is about the requirement to issue tax invoices).The government is proposing, should we assent, to insert those provisions into the bill at this stage. I understand how the government intends to apply a GST to gambling—that is, a GST is applied to the margin. The losses of the patrons of a casino are regarded as sales by the casino for that purpose, and you deduct the losses by the casino against the losses by the patrons to get the net advantage to the casino and then tax that.Here we have a provision referring to tax invoices. If I am a $10 pokie player and I lose $10 on the pokies, an invoice will not be issued to me. Under this law, it would be technically a sale worth $10 by the casino. I have lost it but, technically, it would be a sale by the casino of $10. How will you keep track of what the casinos are rebating high rollers under this provision for an invoice? Because the way it operates—I think this is a settled matter between us; it is not a disputed matter—is that a high roller, defined as someone who gambles $500,000 to $5 million a throw, gambles at whatever game of chance they choose. Where they win, they take their winnings and run. Where they lose, in order to keep their custom—presumably, so that they can win more—the casino rebates them part of their losses. Say they are flipping half a million dollars on a game of chance and they lose, that for tax purposes is regarded as a half-million-dollar sale for the casino and is taxed.But where the casino then rebates them $300,000 to soften the blow and encourage them to keep coming back, that means the sale by the casino, the actual loss borne by the high roller, is $200,000, not $500,000 as was wagered. If you are not issuing each of those high rollers with an invoice, as in that case—it is a similar question now to Senator Murray's—how would you keep track of what the amount of rebate is that casinos are giving to high rollers and whether the government is in a position to make a social judgment about whether the level of the rebate is fair, given that it applies only to people in this category and not to anyone else?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Or whether it is true.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I take that interjection from Senator Murray, because it is to the point: whether the level of rebate is reported accurately and truthfully. How will the government be in a position to know, if it is just going to take the casino's word for it? What degree of transparency will be able to be exercised in this? To extend that question one step further, how will we in this parliament, and through us the people of Australia, know what amount of money could have been collected in tax because of the GST but was forgone by the government in recognising the practice of casinos to rebate high rollers in the manner in which they apparently do?16:46:004751Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—First of all, let me say that you have flagged a number of questions that you want to pursue with us when we get onto the so-called high-roller amendments.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What would you call them?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—They are not high-roller amendments; they are not designed to give any concession to high rollers. But rather than arguing on the political point you have raised, I just make it clear for the record that this is not a concession for high rollers. I take on board that you will be pursuing that. I have not read what Premier Court actually said, and I think I would want to read exactly what he has said.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is what I suggested.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think you recognise that as very reasonable. The point I would make, however, is that the states have signed on to an intergovernmental agreement by which, among other things, they are required to take into account, when setting their taxes, the amount of money which is raised by the GST. There is an intergovernmental agreement, to which Mr Court was a signatory, based on the assumption that there would be no revenue collected on gambling higher than the current arrangements so that, as the GST is imposed, there will be an adjustment in state taxes. I think that is now broadly accepted in this chamber. I will look at exactly what he said. You asked me for some background, and there is an intergovernmental agreement which Premier Court has signed.The next issue you raised was the issue that Senator Murray was concerned about: separate invoices. The point I make there is that the casino will calculate only one gambling margin for its operations in a particular period of time. I think you understood me to say that, and you were quite correct if that was your understanding. The purpose of an invoice is to allow the recipient of a service to get an input tax credit. That is the purpose of an invoice. There are no input tax credits for gambling, so you would be issuing a bit of paper which really has no particular purpose, because you cannot get an input tax credit for it. Because of the way this was drafted, we need to bring that clarity in. I do not think you are seeking an input tax credit for gambling, and it follows from that that you would also support our position that you do not issue an invoice, because the fact of the matter is that there is not an input tax credit and the purpose of issuing an invoice is for someone to get one.You asked me how we can verify this issue. The casino, of course, will need to have records of their net margin. Similar arrangements are required under income tax law. Their records must be proper records, and the tax office has various powers to check that appropriate records have been kept. In a sense, it is similar to the current state arrangements. There is a comparative element there to the current state arrangements on the sorts of records which must be kept. They are subject, above all, to the normal audit requirements. I do not think there is anything that we are proposing here that is without precedent, but it recognises how the Income Tax Act works, it recognises that people have got to keep proper records and it recognises that they can be subject to audit. This is not anything which is strikingly new, but it clearly builds on the current system. As I said, because all the taxes on gambling at present are state taxes, essentially there are procedures in place to make sure that proper records are kept.16:51:004751Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—So, as I understand that answer, to the extent that we will be able to see transparently through the paperwork to identify the level of high-roller rebate that is being paid by a casino, we will be able to see only the global amount; we will not be able to see particular casinos or particular players. We will not, for example, know whether a high roller who is a resident of Australia will get a lower rebate—because they are more likely to patronise that casino—than a high roller who is, say, a wealthy Asian business person who might be playing the casinos of Paris or London and whom the casinos want to attract to play in their high-roller room. We will not know whether that particular class of high roller gets a bigger rebate; we will not be able to differentiate about this.My point is that, because there will be no invoice per high roller, we will not know whether the rebates are standard to all comers in the high-roller room, differentiated to particular customers or different between casinos. It seems to me you could not identify that without an invoice, so to what level of transparency will we be able to go? On your other remarks: of course this is a debate that we will be having later, but it seems to me that, if Premier Court does not proceed in the way in which he has now indicated, the proceeds from the GST that you are providing to the state will be less or you will be cutting special purpose grants. But that is a matter for later on.16:54:004752Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Also with regard to item 7: Minister, would you indicate whether your amendment means that a casino must not or may not provide an invoice? In other words, if someone wanted an invoice, could they get one?16:54:004752Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will answer your question first, Senator Murray; the last comes first in this. The reason we do not want to issue an invoice is that there is no input tax credit for it. We are not proposing to provide individuals with an input tax credit on this issue so we would not issue them with a GST invoice. In other words, this would be inconsistent with all the other invoices where people can claim an input tax credit. This would not be a matter where we would want to issue one simply because there is no input tax credit available.I imagine that a casino could issue a receipt or anything else that it wanted to. If an individual wanted some records, I suppose that it is a matter for the casino to provide some records to the individual if he wanted them for his own purposes. But it would not be an invoice of the type which is defined in the legislation and would not have the same standing as an invoice which is defined in the legislation, because there is not an input tax credit for that person. So, if you are worried about whether the person has records, presum ably he can negotiate with the casino as to what sort of receipt or anything else is appropriate.In relation to your comments, Senator Cook, I have to say I am probably like you: I do not go to casinos, I do not gamble and I have no particular knowledge in detail of how casinos operate—but we can always seek information for you if it is germane to the argument that we are running here. The level of rebates at present is a matter for the casinos. You indicate that they may offer different rebates. I can always check that, but you have made that point. If you are correct, that is exactly what happens at present, and of course at present there is no wholesale sales tax on gambling or whatever. So the truth of the matter is that it is simply a matter for the commercial decision, I would have thought, of the casinos as to how they operate. They have to run their own business and they work out what rebates may be offered.You suggested they may offer lower rebates to Australians and higher rebates to people from overseas. My point there is that this is essentially a matter for the casinos. It is a commercial decision, one which they make at present, presumably. To the extent that your argument applies in the future, it presumably applies right now. What we are going to be doing, as distinct from the current arrangements, will be to impose a GST on the gambling margin. I would have thought that would have given you some comfort.16:57:004752Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, yes, of course we understand that there are no input credits available from gambling. That is the proper policy. My concern was really whether there was a prohibition on an invoice or a receipt being provided for a taxable supply that was solely a gambling supply.My reason is as follows. It is relatively common practice for businesses to entertain visitors, customers or suppliers in casinos. You can picture the scenario of the sales manager of, say, an auto parts company being told by his boss to take three visiting suppliers to the casino. There would be a receipt available from the restaurant and there would be a receipt available from the bar but his boss would expect him to come back with a receipt saying that he spent $1,000 on chips. That is all; I was looking to make sure there is no prohibition on the casino providing that receipt, even though it is solely for gambling purposes.16:59:004753Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If the casino wishes to provide a receipt, that is a matter for negotiation between the individual and the casino. If the casino felt that, in its relations with gamblers, it would provide a receipt, we would not stand in the way of that. What we are not issuing is an invoice of the nature defined in the legislation on which people may assume an input tax credit is available. I think that will answer your question. It is a matter for the casino and the gambler.In relation to other matters that have been raised, my judgment—it is always a matter for judgment—on the concerns that Senator Cook has raised is that gambling is one of the most regulated areas of the economy.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—So it should be.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Woodley, I am making a point: there was concern as to whether there were enough controls in relation to gambling and I am seeking to give some comfort on that issue that was raised by Senator Cook. There may be other areas that are more regulated, but this would arguably be one of the most regulated sections of the economy. Subsection 126-10 of the bill makes it clear that a global GST amount is calculated for one tax period and rebates will be one element used to calculate the single global GST amount. I hope that provides some additional comfort.Senator Murray was worried whether the gambler could get some record. My answer to that is that it is a matter between the gambler and the casino, but he will not get, as a result of this amendment, an invoice of the type defined in this bill and on which an input tax credit would be available.In relation to Senator Cook's concerns, much of what Senator Cook raises—if it is accurate, and I have no reason to argue that; I have no special knowledge on this—occurs right now without a GST on the gambling margin. Where there are varying rebates offered, as Senator Cook has asserted—again I have no specific knowledge—then that presumably occurs now.Then there is the issue of how you deal with proper records and I pointed out again that it is regulated. Proper records are required to be kept by the Australian Taxation Office, which has audit arrangements. I gave further comfort by suggesting that this was already a very highly regulated section of the economy, particularly where states are concerned and the taxes are imposed by state governments.17:03:004753Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, you are getting there, but you have not quite satisfied me and it is for this reason: at no time and in no sense should an Australian ever have to negotiate with a supplier a receipt or an invoice. I mean it for this purpose: every customer is entitled to have a receipt for payment. We must not even imply in this debate that it is an option for a casino not to supply a receipt if asked for it. If, in the example I gave you, the sales manager was given $1,000 by his boss to buy gambling chips, his boss would want to know that those $1,000 were spent on gambling chips. In customer law it is the right of every customer, whether going into a garage, a supermarket or a chemist, to make whatever kind of transaction and to demand and get an invoice for their own record keeping purposes. I am not suggesting for the purposes of generating a tax exemption. It is not a negotiation, it is a right that attaches to the customer. I presume you do not gainsay that right and your use of the word `negotiation' was a loose explanation. Certainly, any customer can ask for a receipt in paying over any amount for gambling supplies.17:05:004753Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are not changing the current law. I am advised that, where there is gambling and the gambler seeks a receipt or whatever, there is no change to the current practice. What it does is prevent an invoice of the nature defined in the legislation being issued, which people may presume provides an input tax credit. We are not stopping whatever people are doing at present. As I said, I have no particular knowledge of that, but this does not alter that arrangement. It makes it very clear that there will not be a GST tax invoice issued for what is technically called gambling supplies. I do not think anyone here would claim to be an expert in gambling.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Senator Woodley is.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Just the results.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Woodley, it is clear that you are not? Is that right? I think that is clear. Senator, we always seek to try to make you happy and I hope that provides you with the comfort you sought.17:06:004754Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I want to make progress, but I have one more question on this matter. Firstly, for the record and because you asked, I am not an habitue of casinos and I am therefore not an expert in gambling games. Every time I play poker for matchsticks I usually lose more than I win. Secondly, you said I asserted certain things about high-roller rebates. I think the accurate way of expressing what I did is to say that I `hypothesised' about them by way of asking you a question as to whether this is the case. Seemingly, you are not in a position to answer that question now, but when we come back to this debate maybe you will be because it is a germane issue.Dealing with the subject under examination in the chamber from a counterfactual point of view, if I am by profession a high roller, a professional gambler, it seems to me that the profit I make on my gambling activities will be GSTable. In the definition of this bill, it seems that the profits I make on my gambling activities will be a taxable supply. The losses I make will be an input to my business and will be a deduction. If I am right on that, how will the tax commissioner know, without there being an invoice, that when I report my earnings I am reporting them accurately?17:09:004754Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Receipts are issued now. My advice from the tax office—the tax advisers—is that that is fine as far as the commissioner is concerned. It is one of those records which the commissioner may well use. As I said, I do not think we are changing the situation as it largely applies now, except to the extent that we are now bringing gambling within the GST net. It is not within the wholesale sales tax net. It seems to me that people who may be a little concerned about this would have greater comfort under the proposal before the chamber than in the current environment; in other words, there is a further broadening of the tax base and, presumably, that adds to the tax office's knowledge about what is occurring in this area. This measure provides a further degree of comfort to people who may be worried about some of the questions which have been raised.17:10:004754Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—For the sake of clarifying the record: the minister has made the observation at least twice now that what he is doing is introducing a GST to an area where there is not a wholesale sales tax—in this case gambling—as if this were some new reform. What the minister is doing is providing the revenue that he obtains from the GST on gambling, and from everything else, to the states and the states are compensating back to the casinos for that revenue. That is my understanding of what you are proposing to do. So you are not, in fact, taxing it at all.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It is revenue neutral, in effect.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Is that true, Senator Kemp?17:11:004754Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The intergovernmental agreement indicates that there will be no net rise in revenue—I think that is the correct way to express it—as a result of the imposition of a GST. As Senator Cook said, an adjustment is made in order to achieve the aim which is set out in the intergovernmental agreement. I make the point that this is being brought into a broader tax net. I would have thought that would have provided a further degree of comfort. As I understand it, at present it is state taxes that are imposed on gambling. I do not argue the point with Senator Cook. We might finesse the wording in a different way but, as I understand the point that he is making, the intergovernmental agreement makes the position pretty clear. If an adjustment was required under the intergovernmental agreement, they would have to take account of the total tax which is being raised.Amendments agreed to.17:13:004755Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move:(8) Clause 156-1, page 218 (line 5), omit "on a progressive or periodic basis", substitute "for a period or on a progressive basis".[periodic supplies and acquisitions](9) Clause 156-5, page 218 (line 10), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and[periodic supplies and acquisitions](10) Clause 156-10, page 218 (line 21), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and[periodic supplies and acquisitions](11) Clause 156-20, page 219 (line 14), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) for a period or on a progressive basis; and[periodic supplies and acquisitions]Before speaking to the amendments, I alert the chamber to the fact that, as a result of the negotiations with the states and territories and commitments undertaken under the IGA, the government is foreshadowing amendments to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 and A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 . Late on our last sitting day the Senate select committee provided its final report on the legislation, including A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999 . The bills were subsequently joined with the other ANTS bills which are now before the chamber. As the relevant bills are now before the chamber, I have asked the clerks to circulate the amendments that we propose which give effect to that agreement. I offer senators who wish to have a detailed briefing on these amendments before they come up for debate an opportunity to do so.Amendments 8 to 11 deal with periodic supplies and acquisitions where a supply covers a period proposed by division 156 and operates to apply to the GST over the period. For example, under an arrangement to supply a right to use something for five years, progressive payments are made during the period. The division operates so that the GST is paid as the payments occur, not in one lump sum with the first payment. These amendments will improve the operation of the division, making it clear that supplies such as leases are subject to GST as the lease payments are received by the lessor.17:15:004755Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Before going to the amendment, you took the opportunity, Minister, to advise the chamber that you will be releasing further amendments to the luxury car set of bills which comes within this broad ANTS package and that you are doing so as a consequence of the Senate select committee report. I am getting a vibe from you that I am not understanding this correctly. So that I understand: what is it you are exactly doing and what is it you are inviting us to be briefed on?17:16:004755Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are inviting you to be briefed on the series of amendments which largely deal with giving effect to the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements bills. I mentioned the luxury car tax bill simply because that was one of the bills which was before the Senate committee. These amendments do not deal with the luxury car tax bill. They deal with the Commonwealth-state financial arrangements. I will be very surprised if people find too many hooks in this. I think a lot of premiers would be very keen for these to go through. I do not want to get into a debate about what premiers have actually said. All I am saying is that they have all signed an agreement and I think that they would want us to proceed with these amendments. I will facilitate any briefing that is required by the non-govern ment parties to assist their understanding of the bill.17:17:004756Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Then I understand that it just refers to the inter-government agreement, not to the luxury car tax, not to the WET tax, which were the other parts of that inquiry. I notice you are nodding in confirmation. I have not looked at those amendments but I will and then I will decide whether I want a briefing. At the beginning of this committee stage, Minister, I did ask you the global question: does the government have any further amendments to bring forward? You have brought forward 128 amendments to your own legislation. We now have an additional number—I am not sure how many.In your answer at question time—a rather enigmatic answer—in which you said that you would listen to the debate in the chamber and glanced in Senator Harradine's direction, I took you to mean that you might be persuaded to make further changes. I now ask you again: on top of the 128 amendments which the government has made and the ones it has now announced, does the government have in its mind to make further additional amendments which we should be aware of in order to speed this debate through?17:18:004756Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, we believe the compensation package is fair. We have had a long debate in this chamber on that issue and the government is not proposing to change the compensation package. We listen to debates, and I underline the government's very clear position that this is a fair compensation package. We had a lot of debate in the second reading stage about that. I understand that not everyone in this chamber is in blazing agreement with me that this is a fair compensation package.These amendments are to a bill which was not before the chamber when we had our initial debate, Senator. These bills were actually before a Senate committee. The government naturally waited until the Senate committee had reported and now the Senate committee has reported we are giving effect to the IGA and the overall amendments. Senator, I have not ruled out other amendments, as you would be aware. In that context, we will listen to what people say but the government's position on the compensation package I think is pretty clear.17:20:004756Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will leave that debate for another time. I am sure we will have it. The amendments now before us, amendments 8 to 11, seek to remove the words `on a progressive or periodic basis' from the relevant clauses and to insert in their place the words `for a period or on a progressive basis'. There are four changes. Minister, can you tell me: is there any difference of intent here or do you prefer the second set of words for some particular reason over the words that you initially put forward? Are we changing anything meaningful? Have you changed your intent, or is there another explanation for these changes in words?17:21:004756Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There is no change in intent. What we are trying to do is give effect to the issue which is before us—the periodic payments. My advice is that we had discussions with tax practitioners and they wanted additional clarity. So there is no change in intent and when you look at the amendments, they make sense. I know Senator Cook is opposed to a GST, but in the context of bringing in broad based tax reform, I think people will look closely at what the original intent was. This gives effect to that but deals with some of the discussions that we have had with tax practitioners in the field.17:22:004756Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—It strikes me that this is almost a plain English change. Frankly, I am at a loss to see that it advances understanding from a tax practitioner's point of view. It strikes me as almost unnecessary. But I assume it is not, so I do not have any objection. I clearly understand your example of how a lease is to be dealt with, but it has been brought to my attention, and probably to the government's, that some business people would like to be able to move between tax reporting periods within a 12-month cycle. This is the kind of flexibility that people such as farmers want—when they are expending large lump sums they would rather be in a very short reporting period so they can get the input credit immediately and when they move to a normal operation they would like to change their reporting period, and so on.So my question relates to flexibility. Does the opportunity exist within the clauses dealing with progressive or periodic supplies and acquisitions for people such as farmers to move about within a 12-month period using different reporting periods and different reporting methods to suit their particular business needs? Or do you elect to operate within only one kind of reporting cycle every 12 months? That is my understanding of the legislation at present. I wonder whether this change you have put up signals a different approach or policy.17:24:004757Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—No, Senator. The issue you have raised is a completely different issue. The length of the tax periods that an individual or business may report on, and whether it be monthly, quarterly or whatever, is a different issue. We are dealing with periodic payments—and payments made over a period of time are taxed in an appropriate way. But the issue of an individual's tax periods—and we can have that debate a bit later—does not relate to the issue which is now before the chamber.This is not a controversial amendment; it is a technical amendment. It is fully in line with the intent of the legislation. The government is responding to the desire of tax practitioners for what they see as an extra degree of clarity, and we are happy to provide it. The issue that you have raised on the overall tax period—whether it be monthly, quarterly or whatever—is a different issue from the one we are now considering.17:26:004757Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I may not have expressed myself as well as I might have. Take the following example: a farmer buys very expensive equipment that is paid for in, say, three or five periodic payments on the anniversary of the acquisition—you are quite right: it does tie into the reporting period—and he would like to take advantage of the ability to get the input credit in a short time frame. We see a mixing of the two problems of periodic payments and the reporting period when a transaction is spaced over a period of years. The example you gave was of a one-time payment, say, by a farmer for a combined harvester, but it often does not happen like that. We all understand that a lease is a periodic payment of whatever kind, but this is the acquisition of capital and other goods.17:27:004757Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Until the full GST is paid, you cannot get an input tax credit. I would have thought the purchaser of the harvester would be most unlikely to want to pay the full GST up-front before he had paid all the instalments or whatever.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—He would have to pay one-fifth.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The periodic payments are allowed under this. The GST is related to the payments that you make. I can understand what you are saying: could you pay all your GST up-front on a small periodic payment? That is not practical, and that is not the intent of the legislation. The wider issue of which tax period you choose is separate from the issue that is before the chamber.17:28:004757Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Consistent with my earlier advice, the opposition will not be opposing these amendments.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—We move now to government amendment No. 1 on sheet FA210.17:29:004757Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I move:(1) Clause 9-15, page 14 (after line 13), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; and (c) a payment made by an *Australian government agency to another Australian government agency is not the provision of consideration if the payment is specifically covered by an appropriation under an *Australian law.[excluding appropriations from the GST]The request for this amendment to clause 9-15 of the bill will make it clear that appropriations made by Australian governments to themselves or to other levels of government are not subject to GST. This is consistent with the government's announced policy.17:30:004758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Honourable senators will note that on their running sheets there is a proposed amendment by the Greens (WA)—that is, amendment (1) on sheet 1382. I do not intend to move that now. It is an amendment that I believe could be moved at any stage, and I would like to come back to that because we are still trying to make sure that it suits everybody's needs. But I would like to ask some questions of the government to clarify the situation as it exists, and as it will exist as a result of their amendment. First of all, who will be making the decisions as to whether a particular grant is to be characterised as a general grant, and therefore not subject to GST, or a specific grant, which amounts to the payment for goods and services?17:31:004758Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Essentially, there would be a self-assessment and, of course, the ATO would have the right to audit. Where people are unsure as to whether it is a general grant—which is the usual expression—or a specific grant for a particular service, as I said, there is a self-assessment arrangement, but there would be guidelines issued, clearly. If an individual or a company is unsure, they can seek a ruling to make sure that they have done the correct thing in their self-assessment arrangements.17:32:004758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the minister. Who or what position in the Australian Taxation Office will make that decision? Has the government developed and provided to organisations or department officials guidelines as to what quantity or quality of conditions would make a grant subject to GST?17:32:004758Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The tax office would put out a ruling so that there would be guidelines which would be available to all. Of course, if people were still unsure, they could seek a specific ruling from the tax office on this matter.17:33:004758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I just want to clarify that. A ruling usually comes as a result of some sort of court challenge, doesn't it? I suppose, that is not necessarily so. You said that it will happen. So is the answer to the question of whether the government has developed and provided guidelines to organisations, `Not yet'? If that is the answer, when would they be likely to see these?17:33:004758Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The first thing is that, no, a ruling is not necessarily issued as a result of a court challenge. In fact, rulings are issued when there is a need for clarity in the case of the law. So rulings cannot be issued until the law is in fact passed, and the sooner we pass this the sooner the tax office will be in a position to issue the required ruling. The typical issue with a ruling is that normally a draft ruling is issued, and sometimes there is a discussion on that and then there is a final rule, but that does not apply in all cases. I think you can be assured that this a very common practice we are talking about here.17:34:004758Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—How would the government view the START grants made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, for instance? These grants are made, I believe, when an enterprise submits a proposal as to the objectives it wants to achieve and there are certain reporting requirements. Would these types of parameters mean that the grant is now a payment for services? I believe there are opinions that these would be conditional gifts. Could the minister clarify that situation?17:35:004758Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me say that, in terms of specifics, the ultimate consequence does not matter because of the net out effects, to be quite frank. But if you want an answer to a specific question relating to a particular grant, I will take that on notice. Obviously, one would have to examine all the circumstances which surround these things. The position is that there is a net out effect so the situation is not really different. That is the advice I have received.17:35:004759Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What is the situation when a government grant is given to an overarching body to distribute to other individuals or organisations? Would there be guidelines for when payments between organisations are a taxable supply or not? Would the overarching body be seen as a link in the chain or just as a facilitator?17:36:004759Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think you would have to look at the specifics. It is a bit hard to give tax rulings on specific issues which are run in that sense. As I said, there will be a ruling issued after the legislation is passed, so that will provide the essential guidelines for people in receipt of grants. Where they are unhappy with that, they can go back and seek a particular ruling which they feel relates to their particular circumstances. It is a bit difficult to give a tax opinion on the run in this sense, but the net out effects mean that there is no real difference between the two categories which you have postulated where one may have a GST applied and one may not.17:37:004759Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I hardly think the minister's response about `net out effects'—which is obviously taxspeak—is going to make those organisations feel comforted if they do not know whether or not there is going to be a requirement to pay. Will the government make a commitment that it will pay the extra 10 per cent on top of grants that are deemed subject to the GST?17:38:004759Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, if you have concerns we are always happy to provide an additional briefing. This sometimes saves time in the chamber—sometimes it effectively increases time in the chamber. From my experience and from the report-backs I have had, I think there is a need for the government to carefully explain to organisations how the system operates. I have had a lot of visits from organisations, and we have facilitated organisations getting detailed briefings from our officials. I do not suggest that there are not some issues outstanding—and I think we are all aware of those—but I think there is now a higher degree of comfort amongst bodies about how the system currently operates.You wanted an example. If the government gives a grant of $100,000 to a particular organisation and that is taxable, the government gives $110,000 and the organisation gets $110,000. It remits the GST, which is $10,000, and the net payment is $100,000. That is what we mean when we say `net out effects'. The government gets an input tax credit of $10,000 so the net cost to the government is $100,000. I hope that provides a degree of clarity. You might wish to read what I said in the Hansard, but I think that explains what I mean when I speak about the net out effects and why the end result is the same as in the other case where a grant is free of GST.17:40:004759Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My understanding of 10 per cent of $110,000 is not $10,000. It would probably be $11,000, would it not?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It is tax inclusive.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Once a decision has been made that a grant is not subject to GST, will the government be instituting protocols such as providing indemnification to cover recipients in the event that the Australian Taxation Office later determines that the grant is a payment for goods and services and is therefore subject to GST?17:41:004759Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Once you have a ruling, it is binding on the commissioner. If the commissioner issued a ruling and someone felt that the ruling did not cover their particular matter, they would maybe seek a specific ruling and the commissioner would be bound by that ruling. The commissioner will not vary his decision after he has provided a ruling on that matter. This is very common practice in the administration of tax law, and it is pretty well known amongst most bodies that have to deal with the tax office.17:42:004759Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—One of the reasons I was asking the question is: is the government aware of the New Zealand case of Director-General v. DeMorgan (1996) 17 NZTC 12636, where it was held that, when the New Zealand government increased the GST rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent, the New Zealand Department of Social Welfare was not liable to pay an extra 2.5 per cent on any of its grants? As a consequence, the recipients of grants in this case—it was someone running a home for the aged—were liable to pay an extra 2.5 per cent GST with no extra grant money in lieu.What commitment will the government give that, if the rate is increased, it would maintain the real grant levels for recipients? Would it not be more certain at the outset to deem all government grants outside the GST system or GST free? It seems like we are going to have a paper nightmare and that there will be a cost in simply transferring money from the government to the recipient and back to the government.17:43:004760Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government has made a commitment that we are not going to increase the GST. I am not aware of the particular court case but, if the issue in that particular court case was that there was an increase in the GST, that would certainly not apply to what is before the chamber. The government's clear commitment is not to increase the GST, and there is a lock-in procedure by which any increase would have to have the agreement of a wide range of states and territories. You have raised the case and I will get my officials to look closely at it. If there is anything more I can add I will do that as soon as I have some additional advice. But I do not think the case is one which is of relevance to Australia.17:44:004760Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I wish that was more comforting than it really ends up being. We realise that in recent times the states have come to agreements about such things as high-rolling gamblers without any real knowledge or without it having been part of the original agreement, and that seems to have covered the government in changing their GST package. Has the government done any research or studies attempting to quantify the compliance costs for recipients, the Australian Taxation Office and government departments in subjecting certain grants to the GST system? Has any calculation been done of the cost of the administrative ping-pong of this system of working out whether a person is subject and sending it back if they were not or paying them more on a certain calculated amount and sending it back?17:45:004760Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Margetts, I think we are probably discussing your amendment now rather than mine. As I said, I do not resist the questions, but they do seem to generally apply more to the amendment which I think you are proposing to move than to the amendment which I have proposed. There are no specific studies, but the regulatory impact statement looks at this issue, and the ongoing cost is calculated at $130 per registration. I think we had this discussion a little bit earlier in the debate.17:46:004760Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have a question on the example that Senator Margetts used. She referred to the Start program, which is the program that this government laughingly proposes to provide incentive for research and development. Leaving aside that editorialising, this is an important program. If someone from that program gets a grant of, say, $100,000, they are then obliged to undertake the research and development that was in their proposal, but they will get a grant of $110,000 in order to meet the GST requirements on that grant. Where does the extra $10,000 come from? Does it come from the global allocation to that program or are all programs to be topped up by 10 per cent so that the real value of those programs remains constant?17:47:004760Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As economists used to say, on the assumption of ceteris paribus—all other things remaining the same—the cost to the government or the particular department is the same because the department gets a credit where there is a GST component. Using the example of $110,000, through that sequence that I went through, ultimately a credit of $10,000 is given where a GST is paid. As I said, on the assumption of all other things being the same, the cost to the government is the same.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It goes back to the Australian Taxation Office and then to the states. Are you saying—An adviser having responded—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We have very enthusiastic staff. I think I will repeat that for the convenience of the Hansard . I do not know how Hansard will deal with that. We have a very keen set of advisers here, Senator Cook. The department gets the credit. If it was passed on to the states or whatever, if there is a GST on the grant provided by the department, it is the department which gets the credit. The net cost to the government does not increase as a result of that GST.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And the funding to the program does not go down?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—On ceteris paribus. Governments make decisions about particular programs. Governments will always do that, as they should. If you were in government or the Democrats were in government, you would have your own priorities about the sorts of programs you fund.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It would be a bit different.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am just talking about how government operates. A government operates by setting, among other things, priorities amongst the amount of money it is prepared to raise. We are discussing a principle position as to how this would work out in fact, but we are also discussing particular programs. What I am saying is ceteris paribus—all other things being the same—the net cost does not increase. I hope that answers your question. I will be interested to see how Hansard deals with the interjection.17:50:004761Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, it has been a practice of the Treasury to use relatively youthful advisers. I notice you have someone with grey hair who has been attached to your staff at the back there. I say welcome to Senator Ferguson in his new role.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—He has been promoted to adviser.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—He is well informed now, so he is quite capable of giving advice.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I would put him on the front bench if I were you.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, I notice that he likes to give advice to us, to the Labor Party and to everyone else as well. Minister, in response to Senator Margetts's question, you referred to the locking-in mechanism. My attention was drawn to an article in the Bulletin of 11 May. As you know, the Bulletin has been upgraded and rejigged. The article, which was on page 20, was entitled `Is it legal?', and it asked, `Is the GST constitutional?' It outlined three areas where the GST may encounter future legal hurdles.It outlined the first as the price policing power given to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; the second it outlined as the locking-in mechanism of the GST's 10 per cent rate—which is the thing you referred to—and it outlined the third as being provided by legal expert George Williams of the ANU, that it is unconstitutional for the parliament to attempt to bind a future parliament to require approval by the states to change a tax. The first issue it did not give a source for; the second issue is from the Parliamentary Library's paper of last week; and the third is a quite well-known legal expert. I wonder if you might be accused of misleading Senator Margetts in your response on the locking-in mechanism when certainly some advice which is publicly available indicates that that locking-in mechanism may in fact be invalid, illegal and ineffective.17:52:004761Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have had quite a long debate on the constitutional issues concerned with this bill. In fact, that was almost the first issue which this chamber dealt with, and there was quite a vigorous debate stretching over a number of hours about that issue. Let me make it clear that the government is confident that the bills as presented to this chamber are constitutional. We would not have presented them in the chamber if we did not think they were constitutional. As I said, I do not accept the view that the bills are not constitutional. Can I prevail upon your goodwill? We have had this debate, and could we deal with the amendment before the chair? Can I even suggest that it may be possible for us to deal with it before the siren sounds?17:53:004762Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, I would not have raised the issue, but you raised it yourself in your answer to Senator Margetts. I would point out that the article actually quotes you. It said:When Senator Harradine raised the section 55 problems in the Senate recently, the government stonewalled. Assistant Treasurer Rod Kemp would say only that the new tax was constitutional but refused to table any advice.I think that is accurate. That is what you said. You said it repeatedly and you repeatedly refused to table any advice. I just let you know that you have not satisfied all senators on that issue.Minister, returning to your amendment, I looked in the dictionary attached to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 for a definition of either `agency' or `government agency'. I did not look under `Australian government agency'. Is my understanding correct that an Australian government agency is one that is 100 per cent owned—I suppose I could use the term `owned'—by the government and is not autonomous but is subject to ministerial control and management? Could you in fact define for us what an Australian government agency is in terms of this tax provision?17:55:004762Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have got rather technical advice. It is an agency which is part of what is termed the federal or state crown, and it comes under that technical way of describing it. It is regarded as an agency of government. But I may seek from my advisers an explanation which is more senator friendly than the one I have just given. I will seek, perhaps when the debate resumes tomorrow, to provide an explanation which answers the question in a way which people would perhaps be more aware of.17:56:004762Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Thank you for that response, Minister. Through the chair, to assist the Minister, I am probably more interested in what the definition would exclude rather than include. I would like to know if it excluded ASIC or the ACCC—those kind of autonomous institutions—and how it would deal with Telstra, which is part owned and part not, government business enterprises and those sorts of things, if I could.The amendment before us, as Senator Margetts has outlined, does pick up issues concerning how community organisations, who fulfil what were government functions, will compare with this. As the minister would probably be aware, community groups like St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, Centacare and Unicare are all reporting big increases in demands for services, as funding to core government services is cut back. In other words, there has been a cost shifting from the government sector to the not-for-profit sector.The issue, if I understood her correctly, that Senator Margetts was raising is that that is all very well but, if it also carries with it a further 10 per cent tax imposition, that gets even harder to deal with. I appreciate that, in the way that you have responded so far, you have sought to allay those fears and I think I have understood your responses in those regards.But there are also other areas, such as Job Network—which we might deal with tomorrow when the debate resumes—where the Prime Minister has a stated policy objective of privatising much of those functions in turn, which might be considered welfare or government functions. How will they be affected by the policy and the amendment and the provisions of the bill that you have already covered? I flag that question mark to you.I clearly understand from what you have said that, if a payment is made to a government agency for a service under an appropriation, it is GST free. That would seem to be eminently sensible. I cannot see why you would not want to do it. But, as Senator Margetts has picked out, if it is made to a community service organisation, an environmental organisation, a public health organisation or a not-for-profit employment provider, it could in certain circumstances be subject to GST—and that would create major problems. If those problems are passable, I think we need to attend to how they could be avoided.I should indicate that it is not our intention to oppose this amendment, but we will move our own amendment later on to make grant payments to charities GST free, so that it is absolutely clear that that is the situation. I do not think there should be any doubt on this matter.Progress reported.Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Miscellaneous4763476319:30:004763Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the following documents:Budget papersNo. 1—Budget Strategy and Outlook 1999-2000.No. 2—Budget Measures 1999-2000.No. 3—Federal Financial Relations 1999-2000.No. 4—Agency Resourcing 1999-2000.Ministerial Statements—A better future for indigenous Australians—Statement by Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), dated 11 May 1999.Australia's overseas aid program 1999-2000—Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), dated 11 May 1999.Choice and equity: Funding arrangements for non-government schools 2001-2004—Statement by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Kemp), dated 11 May 1999.*Promises kept for a stronger Australia—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), dated 11 May 1999.Delivering on our commitments for women—Statement by the Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Newman), dated 11 May 1999.Investing in our natural and cultural heritage the Commonwealth's environment expenditure 1999-2004—Statement by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), dated 11 May 1999. Our commitment to Australia's seniors—Statement by the Minister for Aged Care (Mrs Bishop), dated 11 May 1999.Regional Australia: Meeting the challenges—Statement by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) and the Minister Regional—Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald),, dated 11 May 1999.Strengthening and supporting Australian families—Statement by the Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Newman), dated 11 May 1999.I seek leave to make a statement relating to the 1999-2000 budget.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—This is the budget for the last year of the Century. In putting together this budget, the government wanted to achieve a number of things:* We wanted to deliver the election commitments we made last October.* We wanted an economic framework which would help families by keeping home mortgage rates low.* We wanted to deliver increased services to rural and regional Australia.* We wanted to build the nation's educational and research capacity.* We wanted to keep Australia strong—having come through the first two years of the Asian economic and financial crisis.* We wanted to keep the budget in surplus.We wanted to frame a budget which would set us up to enter the next Century much as we entered this one—a world leader in living standards, prosperous, free, and with all the potential of a dynamic young nation.Madam President, this budget is right for the times. The Commonwealth Government, this year, budgets again to spend within its means.Madam President, for the third year in a row, the budget will be in surplus—a surplus of more than $5 billion. And that means that this year, again, we can pay off debt.In the last five years before the coalition was elected, Labor ran up Commonwealth debt by nearly $80 billion. We had to raise $9 billion in taxes just to pay the government's interest bill. The coalition put an end to that spiral of deficit and debt. This is the fourth budget I have presented on behalf of the coalition Government. In those four budgets, in net terms, we have not borrowed a dollar.And we have repaid over $24 billion of Labor's debt.If the Senate passes the government's legislation—legislation to implement policies we put to the electorate last October—by 2002-03, we could repay all of Labor's debt. And the Commonwealth Government could be debt free.We could begin the next Century, as we began this one: No Commonwealth debt—a clean sheet—and no interest bill to pay. We would have the chance to lower taxes, and build better opportunities for our people.The historic turnaround in the Commonwealth Budget was not done by pushing up tax, but by pruning expenses.The budget I present tonight, for the fourth year in a row, proposes:* No increase in rates of income tax.* No increase in rates of company tax.* No increase in rates of petrol excise.* No increase in rates of wholesale sales tax.The Economic EnvironmentJust under two years ago events beginning in Thailand led to the most severe financial crisis and economic downturn in our region in 50 years. Since then, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand—nearly all the countries of our region—went into recession.Many thought Australia couldn't stand against such a severe regional crisis. Some predicted Australia would be dragged into recession and spiralling unemployment. But sound economic management and sound institutions protected our economy. It didn't go into recession. Our economy grew. In fact it grew faster than the countries of Europe and faster than the developed world, faster than the countries in America. And unemployment fell. In the past year, 180,000 new jobs were created.Our inflation is as low as we've seen it in 30 years. Home mortgage interest rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years, and unemployment—while still too high—has fallen to its lowest level since the start of the decade.But we would fool ourselves to think our problems are now all over. Our region is still in trouble. The world economy is still weak. Next year the government forecasts economic growth at 3 per cent—this is faster than most of the major economies of the world but a little slower than the very high growth of 4¼ per cent this year. Our current account deficit—widened by weak export prices and a strong consumer demand for imports—is forecast at 5¼ per cent of GDP. This is a little better than this year. But it means we cannot afford to be complacent.The world economy is still a very uncertain place.Just as the economic reform of three years ago gave us the strength to ride out the challenges of the last year, the reforms of today will determine how we ride out the challenges of tomorrow. If we want the growth, the living standards, and the jobs in the next decade, we must rise to the challenges of today.And, of course, the reform of the Australian taxation system is our greatest reform challenge.With a strong year behind us, new challenges now upon us, and with great opportunities before us, the government has carefully drawn up its initiatives and set its priorities for the coming year. Our economic strategy is responsible, fair and prudent.It is right for the times.Our priority is our election commitments. We are able to announce tonight how the government will deliver those commitments. And tonight we outline some exciting new initiatives for our country and our future.EducationMadam President, we cannot, with certainty, predict all the challenges our children will face in the future. We cannot with certainty, predict the work skills they will need for the jobs they will do—but we do know that the best possible way to prepare them is a strong education.The Commonwealth, in this forthcoming year, will spend $4.8 billion on the education of primary and secondary children. The government is committed to ensure that all young people have access to a strong basic education and a quality pathway from school to further training, further education, and employment. A key government priority is to ensure that every Australian school child is able to read and write. This budget builds on previous initiatives by allocating $131 million over four years for literacy and numeracy programs in schools. For the first time, literacy and numeracy programs will extend to the middle years of schooling. Parents want their children to be able to read and write. We want to help schools do it. Funding of $78 million is being provided for a Quality Teacher Program to help teachers focus on professional development in literacy, numeracy, mathematics, science, information technology and vocational education.Additional funding of $553 million over five years has been provided for Catholic systemic schools, implementing our election commitment made last October. This decision followed an independent assessment of the needs of this system conducted by the Non-Government Schools Funding Review Committee.In this budget we are announcing a new formula for distributing recurrent funding to non-government schools. The new system will be based on the needs of the parents, taking into account the resources of the community that a school serves. It will provide a fairer and better treatment. It will boost funding for needy schools. The new system will be phased in to operate fully by 2004. Schools which could have been disadvantaged by the new arrangements will be protected. They will have their existing per capita grants adjusted in line with cost rises. This guarantee and the increased grants going to more needy schools will increase funding by around $561 million over the 2001-04 school quadrennium.Madam President, if we are to educate our children for life, we must also educate them about the evils in our society.The government rejects the inevitability of increasing damage to individuals and the community from illicit drugs. To date the government has committed to a range of new measures in the fight against drugs, as part of the National Illicit Drug Strategy. In this budget $80 million over four years is announced for interception, treatment and a National School Drug Education Strategy: to teach our children the dangers, and hopefully protect them from the scourge of illicit drugs. This budget also provides a further $221 million over four years to allow police to compulsorily divert illicit drug users from the criminal justice system to counselling and treatment. We do not accept that drug addiction cannot be treated. This budget provides funds to expand treatment services for drug users.A Safer CommunityThe government will establish a National Crime Information System (Crimtrac) to build a National DNA Criminal Intelligence Database and a National Child Sex Offender Database. Crimtrac will provide access to the most up to date and efficient technology to store and retrieve information to help police stop crime and protect the public. The government will also be establishing a National Crime Prevention Program aimed at finding and promoting ways of preventing crime and violence in the community. To enhance an equitable and accessible system of federal law and justice, additional counselling and mediation dispute resolution services will be provided and access to justice for disadvantaged people in rural and regional areas will be extended. The Commonwealth will establish a new Federal Magistrates Service to deal with less complex Federal cases. A Commonwealth Law Courts building will be constructed in Adelaide.FamiliesMadam President, the government has before the Parliament legislation to provide around $2½ billion of extra family assistance each year.Associated with the introduction of the new tax system from 1 July next year, over two million Australian families will qualify for additional assistance—at least $140 per child, and in a one income family with a dependent child under five, $490 per child.This is in addition to income tax cuts now contained in legislation before the Senate. The government's legislation proposes to cut income tax for every Australian taxpayer.In addition to the increased benefits provided to families as part of the government's tax reform—A New Tax System—from 1 July 2000, eligibility for Family Tax Benefit, Part A will be extended further than is contained in the legislation. The benefit will be payable for dependent young people up to the age of 21 years who are not receiving Youth Allowance, or if they are receiving part Youth Allowance, the benefit will be topped up for qualifying families to the maximum rate of $37.50 per fortnight.The government's focus on helping families includes a range of specific initiatives including increased relationship support services, assistance to resolve family disputes, developing approaches to reduce domestic violence, expansion of children's contact services, a new suicide prevention strategy and support for carers of young people with disabilities. The government will implement a new youth homelessness early intervention program and provide increased funding for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program which provides transitional support and accommodation to help homeless people and those at risk from domestic violence.The government's economic strategy is directed squarely at helping Australian families. The average Australian family with a mortgage is saving over $320 a month as a result of interest rate falls under this government. More young Australians can buy homes. More families can pay the mortgage to keep their home. Good economic policy is good family policy.HealthThe government is working to improve the health and medical care of all Australians. We are committed to a balanced health system with Medicare, a strong public hospital system and the opportunity for more Australians to take out private health insurance.We are working with the States and Territories to ensure continued improvement in the efficiency and quality of services in public hospitals. To encourage private health insurance, from 1 January this year, every Australian taking out private health insurance is eligible to have 30 per cent of the premium paid by the Commonwealth.To build on this initiative, and to further encourage people to take out health insurance, Lifetime Health Cover will be implemented from 1 July 1999. This system will allow registered health funds to charge different premiums, depending on the age at which a person first joined a health fund. People taking out cover early in life will pay lower premiums. The new system rewards early and continuous membership. The premium will be set at the age a person first joined, and once set, remains at a lower rate, relative to people entering at an older age. We want young people to make health insurance a habit. There will be a 12 month grace period from 1 July to allow those not yet insured to do so. If they do, they will be credited with the lowest possible joining age. In addition, special provisions will protect people aged 65 or more on 1 July 1999 by ensuring that they can take out hospital cover at any time and be credited with the minimum joining age.In this, the International Year of the Older Person, the health care of older Australians is a particular priority. The budget provides funding of $228 million for an Enhanced Primary Care Package, targeted to older Australians and those with chronic conditions. The package is designed to better coordinate health services and to improve people's self-reliance and capacity to manage their own conditions. For example, the government will provide for voluntary annual health assessments for those Australians aged 75 and over. We will put in place a program to help prevent injuries to elderly people arising from falls. Separately, $82 million has been provided to expand the provision of respite care for carers of people with dementia and other cognitive and behavioural problems. These measures are designed to support carers and by supporting them, to support those with disability.The government will provide additional funding of $210 million over the next four years for hearing rehabilitation services, including the provision of hearing aids for eligible persons. The funding will enable a further 67,000 Australians to be assisted each year. While this will mainly benefit older Australians, a component of this funding will be directed towards the ongoing delivery of high quality hearing services to children and others with special needs.The government will continue to work toward addressing the huge disparity in the health of our indigenous people. Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander primary health care funding is to be increased by $79 million over four years. The Army/ATSIC Community Assistance Program which provides environmental and health infrastructure delivered by defence personnel to indigenous communities will also be extended.Rural and Regional AustraliaThe government is strongly committed to rural and regional Australia. We know the many challenges that country people face. So tonight, in this budget, there are a number of initiatives seeking to help strengthen the social and economic fabric of rural and regional areas.We are working with Australia's primary industries to secure their profitability, sustainability and competitiveness. Part of this is the ongoing Supermarket to Asia Strategy to develop Australia as the food supplier to the region. To add to this, a new Food and Fibre Supply Chain Program will be established. These programs will open up markets for Australia's farmers. Resources are also being provided for the Northern Australian Quarantine Strategy and regional flood mitigation programs. The government will provide $32 million over five years to restore ground water pressure in the Great Artesian Basin, a major water resource for the country, supporting pastoral and mining enterprises.People living outside capital cities must have access to quality health care. During the 1998 election campaign, the government committed itself to a series of measures to improve rural health services in the short and longer term. This budget delivers on those promises. An additional 30 Regional Health Service Centres will be established in rural communities across Australia over the next four years. These centres will draw together health, aged care and other community services to a central location; based on community need, providing a mix of services to best meet local priorities.And we know rural Australia needs more doctors. The government will spend $43 million over four years to pay retention money for long serving GPs as an incentive for them to continue practice in rural and remote areas. The government will establish a clinical school based in Wagga and a medical school at James Cook University in Queensland. We will establish a Rural Australia Medical Undergraduate Scholarships Scheme for rural students to train as doctors. Rural people trained as doctors are more likely to serve in rural Australia. We will establish a fly-in female general practitioner service for women in rural and remote areas who currently do not have access to a female GP.To ensure that students from rural and regional areas have access to education, this budget provides a number of initiatives including increasing boarding allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme and extending eligibility for the student financial loan supplement.Two new Centrelink call centres will be established, in Maryborough in Queensland and Port Augusta in South Australia. The new call centres will tailor services to customers in regional and rural Australia.As part of the social bonus to be funded from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra, the government will fund the establishment of up to 500 rural transactions centres at a cost of $70 million over five years. This means small rural communities can establish centres that provide access to services, such as banking, post, phone, fax and Medicare from the one centre. This goes a long way to defeating the distance that makes it hard for rural and regional Australians to access services.An efficient and integrated transport sector is vital to underpinning economic growth, creating investment and providing services to people in both urban and regional Australia.The government has allocated an additional $195 million over four years to upgrade the National Highway System and roads of national importance. Increased funding is also being provided for bridge upgrades to facilitate the introduction of increased mass limits for heavy vehicles. These programs will enhance the efficiency of our road transport system, with consequential national and regional economic benefits. The Black Spot Program is also being extended for a further two years in order to make our roads safer and reduce the social trauma and human costs of road crashes.Training and EmploymentMadam President, one of the most significant structural changes introduced by this government was the concept of mutual obligation—the obligation of the community to the individual, and the obligation of the individual, in return, to the community.That is why the government introduced the Work for the Dole scheme. It has been immensely successful.The government is pursuing a wide range of labour market reforms to achieve sustained reductions in the level of unemployment. As part of an integrated approach to employment, the scope of activities that satisfy the mutual obligations of unemployment beneficiary recipients will be increased. Work for the Dole will be extended to those aged between 25 and 34 years who have been in receipt of unemployment payments for twelve months or more. Work for the Dole will also be expanded to Year 12 school-leavers in receipt of unemployment payments for more than three months. In total, this will involve a doubling of Work for the Dole places from 25,000 in 1998-99 to 50,000 by 2000-01.Employers in rural and regional areas will be provided with an additional incentive payment of $1000 to progress new apprentices to higher skill levels in trades and occupations experiencing skill shortages.To combat the severe employment problems faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the government will introduce the Indigenous Employment Policy. The package of additional initiatives to address the severe employment situation faced by indigenous Australians will double the funding for indigenous program initiatives from $25 million to $50 million per annum.Frontiers in Science and ResearchMadam President, advances in health care and quality of life in the future will come from new knowledge and new scientific breakthroughs. Australia has a proud history of science and medical research. Australian pioneers—the Howard Floreys, the Macfarlane Burnets, the Victor Changs—led the world. We want to build a culture that will bring forth new pioneers in the new century, who will expand the frontiers of knowledge and advance just like their predecessors.In an historic commitment, the government has decided to invest an additional $614 million over the next six years into health and medical research funded through the National Health and Medical Research Council. No previous Australian government has ever given health and medical research such a high priority.This will more than double the Council's existing funding level by the year 2005. A significant part of this investment will be for the development of an enhanced national medical genomics capacity, which will have the potential to look for ways to cure major illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. This capacity, along with other research initiatives the Treasurer is announcing tonight, will ensure that Australia can maintain its place at the cutting edge of biotechnology. This is a new frontier for innovative, knowledge-based industries in health, agriculture and many other related areas. Most importantly, this funding will enable our best and brightest to pursue opportunities in science and medicine, here in Australia. In addition, new funding of $20 million over the next two years will develop enhanced physical facilities in Australia's leading health and medical research institutes.This significant boost in funding for health and medical research flows, in part, from the recommendations of the Wills Review, the most comprehensive report ever undertaken into medical research. These measures will consolidate Australia's position in the top 10 OECD countries in terms of health and medical research investment.Biotechnology will have a major impact on many commercial activities and has the potential to improve the lives of Australians through new medical treatments, safer and more nutritious food, reductions in the use of chemicals and more sustainable land use practices. We are going to assist the biotechnology industry to maximise its contribution to the Australian economy. This will be done through a one-stop-shop named Biotechnology Australia, supported by a Council of Ministers, to advance developments and harness discoveries in this area. The government will also establish the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, operating with existing mechanisms to ensure Australia has a nationally consistent system to regulate food, agriculture and therapeutic goods to develop public confidence and ensure public safety in reaping benefits from this cutting edge area of science.To help ensure that Australia maintains its strength in scientific and industrial research and innovation, the government will maintain higher baseline funding for the CSIRO. Research infrastructure funding for universities will be increased and new science lectureships will be established. This complements the Strategic Partnerships-Industry Research and Training program for which additional funding has previously been announced.Leading Financial ServicesAustralia's system of financial regulation leads the world. The stability shown in the banking and corporate sector, notwithstanding the Asian financial crisis, is evidence of how well placed the regulatory reforms have proved. To enhance Australia's capacity to participate fully in the strong global growth in the financial services industry, the government has allocated $3.5 million in each of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for initiatives to promote Australia as a centre for global financial services.Australia's public finances are reported and presented on a world class basis. Our Charter of budget Honesty is now advocated internationally as a model for other countries. This budget is presented on an accrual basis for the first time. It allows us to properly budget for future expenditures. This puts Australia at the forefront of transparency in the conduct of fiscal policy.Economic OutlookMadam President, after two years of economic growth in excess of 4 per cent, growth of around 3 per cent is expected in 1999-2000. Growth over the year to the June quarter 2000 is expected to be around 3½ per cent. This is a remarkable achievement given the crisis in Asia and the slowdown in world growth. Economic growth in Australia will remain stronger than all the G7 economies and the average of the OECD countries and more favourable than most countries in the region.In 1999-2000 we are expecting stronger growth in both exports and investment in plant and equipment as the international economy gradually improves.Employment growth is set to be strong enough to keep intact the very significant gains this government has made on reducing the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate should remain around its current level. The outlook is for inflation to remain low, averaging 2 per cent in 1999-2000.As exports and commodity prices respond to a gradual strengthening in world growth, the current account deficit will ease in 1999-2000 to average around 5¼ per cent of GDP.Concluding CommentsWithin the space of four budgets the coalition has positioned Australia for the next century. We now have very sound fundamen tals: strong growth, low inflation, the budget in surplus and the prospect of completely eliminating Commonwealth net debt.Our next budget will begin the story of the 21st century. By then we should have a new tax system—A New Tax System for the new century. A new tax system will fund and sustain our hopes and aspirations in health care, in education, in care for the old, and care for the young.The next decade could be a special one for Australia—a step up in growth, in jobs, in our community infrastructure, in our services, for those in need, in our living standards, leading the region and, in many respects, leading the world.Good economic policy will determine our capacity to meet these important social objectives. This is a budget for those objectives. This is a budget right for these times.I commend the budget to the Senate. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the budget statement and documents.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement and documents.Debate (on motion by Senator Faulkner) adjourned.477020:03:004770Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the following documents:Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending 30 June 2000.Particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 2000.Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2000.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—by leave—I move:That:(1) The documents be referred to legislation committees for examination and report in accordance with the provisions of the order of the Senate of 26 November 1998 relating to estimates hearings. (2) Legislation committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments to committees agreed to on 11 November 1998.Question resolved in the affirmative.477010000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I table the following documents:The portfolio budget statements for 1999-2000 for the—Department of the Senate.Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff.Department of the Parliamentary Library.Joint House Department.477020:04:004770Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the following documents:Estimates of proposed expenditure for the year 1999-2000—portfolio budget statements—portfolios and executive departments—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Portfolio.Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio.Attorney-General's Portfolio.Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio.Defence Housing Authority.Defence Portfolio.Education, Training and Youth Affairs Portfolio.Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Portfolio.Environment and Heritage Portfolio.Family and Community Services Portfolio.Finance and Administration Portfolio.Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio.Health and Aged Care Portfolio.Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Portfolio.Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio.Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio.Transport and Regional Services Portfolio.Treasury Portfolio.Veterans' Affairs. Adjournment4771Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.477120:04:004771Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Tonight I would like to—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Would senators please leave the chamber or resume their seats.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—We'll leave.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Perhaps Senator Abetz may learn something this evening if he stays. He suggests he may want to leave; that is fine. I rise tonight to discuss the issue of the labelling of genetically modified organisms. It is timely, and I congratulate the government for the idea in the budget that we will see the establishment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which is a positive move in terms of recognising the importance of genetic technology issues to Australians. However, I wish to address the developing issue of genetically modified organisms and their labelling. It is a pressing concern of the Australian and international communities and it must be addressed by this parliament. It has serious implications for health, environmental trade and consumer rights to information.Recently, genetically modified organisms have been recognised internationally to possess unknown health effects. In February this year the government of the United Kingdom declared an open ended moratorium on commercial production of genetically modified crops until such time as the government can be assured that they do not damage the health of consumers and the environment. The food minister, Mr Jeff Rooker, also announced earlier this month the introduction of new regulations requiring restaurants and cafes to inform customers of foods which contain GMOs. This extends European rules requiring retailers to label all foods that are GMOs—beyond the supermarket shelves to the hospitality industry.The UK announcement also follows moves by Marks and Spencer to cease sales of foods containing GM ingredients and the supermarket chain Sainsbury's plans to eliminate GM ingredients from its own brand products—at present all but 50 products contain GM soy protein or DNA and these are labelled. Such international initiatives demonstrate that it is possible and cost efficient to identify GM ingredients in food and further more that it is actually in the interests of the industry to do so.Such moves are long overdue in this country. A national government study by the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology determined, as long ago as July 1995, that 89 per cent—a huge majority—of Australian consumers supported the labelling of genetically engineered tomatoes. Only four per cent said they were against labelling.At present, the majority of processed foods in Australia contain soy beans imported from the US of which 15 per cent are genetically modified and unlabelled. This is a real concern. Without labelling, consumers are unable to avoid those foods which may cause allergic reactions or conflict with ethical or religious considerations. This is not going to be resolved under the current ANZFA proposed A18 standard. The authority only requires labelling of GMOs which are not substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart. However, `substantially equivalent' is too broad and does not adequately ensure consumer health.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—This will make front-page headlines tomorrow.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Tests used to determine substantial equivalents do not detect unstable or multiple inserts of genes into an organism's genome, which could have unknown health and environmental effects. I am sorry that some senators opposite do not consider this kind of information important or exciting to them, but 89 per cent of consumers, when asked about genetically modified tomatoes, do think it is of concern. I am sorry that Senator Abetz is now on record as suggesting that it is not exactly front-page news.Furthermore, tests for some kind of allergic reaction as stipulated by ANZFA cannot test for new proteins that may be produced through genetic manipulation processes, or new combinations of toxins that could cause allergic reactions. On this basis the A18 standard is deemed inadequate and, therefore, should be rejected. This was one of the findings of Australia's first consensus convention on the issue of genetic technologies.The final report produced by the convention strongly recommended that all GM foods—not just those which are not `substantially equivalent'—should be labelled. The report overwhelmingly rejected the term `substantial equivalence' due to its narrow scientific application, and it promoted very strongly the idea of comprehensive labelling as the only way to ensure that individuals have full control of the health, religious, moral and ethical aspects of genetic engineering. I call on the Senate to recognise that and endorse the final report that the convention produced. I think it is one of the most comprehensive accounts to date of the Australian public's views on genetic technology and, in particular, GMOs.Among its recommendations the report called for a new statutory authority with transparent procedures to hold responsibility for GMOs. That is why I sought to acknowledge the government's positive aspects in tonight's budget, despite the interjections by government members. I was actually commending them on something that they have done. I suggest that the people who were responsible for the report at the consensus convention will see that some of the ideas proposed in tonight's budget may go some way to alleviating concerns.A further recommendation in the report was that environmental and health departments be integrally and proactively involved in developing strategies to address GMO applications. That is yet to happen. Another recommendation was that the regulation of GMO issues not be moved to the agricultural, fisheries and forestry portfolios or departments. We have heard whispers behind the scene that we could see a transfer of the responsibility for issues such as this from health portfolios, where they belong, to agricultural portfolios.If we are not mindful of environmental and health concerns and do not regulate comprehensively, we will lose consumer confidence and significant trade opportunities. According to a 1997 poll, 70 to 90 per cent of Japanese are in favour of comprehensive labelling of GM products. In light of this, we should be promoting ourselves as a clean and green exporter, rather than undermining our current trade advantage, as I believe the A18 standard will.At present, Australia is the only country to guarantee non-GM canola. In January this year, the largest shipment of Australian canola to leave our shores was sold to oilseed crushing plants in Europe. Europe has become a major buyer of Australian canola due to our GMO-free canola supply. The 57,000 tonne shipment, valued at around $A26 million, is expected to lead a record shipping program for 1999 which is to total approximately 350,000 to 400,000 tonnes.The importation of Australian GMO-free rapeseeds by the Japan Agriculture Co-op Association is another example of the potential trade benefits for a country such as ours if we are into comprehensive identification, preservation and tracking regulations. Australian trade with the association commenced in October last year and is expected to expand to 20,000 tonnes per year as consumer demand increases. By implementing a strong identity preservation regime in Australia, we can position ourselves as a clean, green exporter in the Australasian region and exploit our natural advantage as an isolated land mass, an ideal attribute to quarantine against genetic pollution.At present, the Australasian health food company Sanitarium has installed a rigorous system which ensures that their soy milk is GMO free. This system guards against cross-contamination of, say, United States GM-free seeds through the export, production and manufacturing processes—to use the expression that ads use, from paddock to plate. The Sanitarium system demonstrates that identity tracking and preservation is actually possible and is advantageous to Australia's trade position. We should be promoting our own clean, green soya in Australia, guaranteed by comprehensive identity tracking and preservation. These are things that most consumers involved in the genetic technology debate, certainly the consensus convention, have called for.Australia needs clearly stated, compulsive guidelines. We need legislated rules regulating the use of GMOs and ensuring personal health, the health of our environment and our agricultural trade relations. We must reject ANZFA's standards for labelling and implement a real comprehensive and workable system, not a system like the A18 standard which pretends to label GMOs.Finally, I would like to acknowledge the money that has been put forward tonight for some of the biotechnology advances, but warn that we still have no framework legislation in this country to guard against discrimination on the grounds of genetic information and nothing that actually protects genetic privacy.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Why didn't you appear at the hearings?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I look forward to the day when the government introduces a legislative regime on a state or federal level, a bit like the US is debating right now. I think it would be a very positive advance.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Did you do any work on that? No.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Perhaps senators opposite could spend more time looking at such issues instead of interjecting the whole time.20:15:004773Senate adjourned at 8.15 p.m.Documents47734773The following government documents were tabled:Natural Heritage Trust—Report for 1997-98.Treaties—Bilateral—Text, together with national interest analysis— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Fiji on Trade and Economic Relations, done at Canberra on 11 March 1999.Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, done at New Delhi on 26 February 1999.Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, done at Vilnius on 24 November 1998.Text, together with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement—Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings between Australia and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway, done at Brussels on 29 April 1999.Multilateral—Text, together with national interest analyses—Amendments, done at Geneva in May 1998, to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) of 22 July 1946.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Statement under subsection 122A(3)—Suspension and removal from office of a regional councillor.Customs Act and Excise Act—CEO Instruments of Approval Nos 1-10 of 1999.Defence Act—Defence Force Regulations—Declaration made under regulation 49, dated 10 May 1999.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declaration under section 18 amending Schedule 1— 99/ESP2. 99/ESP4.Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 70.Fisheries Management Act—Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995—Direction No. NPFD 28 (Amendment of Directions Nos NPFD 25 and NPFD 27).Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section— 15—Determinations Nos T 28-T30 of 1998. 16—Determination No. T27 of 1998. 20A—Determination No. T8 of 1999.Migration Act— Notice under subsection 96(2)—Pass mark, dated 16 April 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 68 and 69.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 66.Product Rulings PR 1999/11, PR 1999/18 and PR 1999/19.Quarantine Act—Quarantine Determination No. 2 of 1999.Social Security Act—Adult Disability Assessment Determination 1999.Taxation Determination— TD 92/143 (Addendum). TD 1999/6 and TD 1999/7.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 33-41 of 1999.Workplace Relations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 67.Answers to Questions on Notice4775The following answers to questions were circulated:4775(Question No. 5)54775O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on the 1st sitting day of the 39th Parliament:(1) Since 1 July 1997 how many consultancies have been let by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia.(2)(a) Since 1 July 1997 how many consultancies has the department let relating to CASA, Airservices Australia or to any other matters relating to aviation safety; (b) what were the terms of reference for each consultancy; (c) were tenders called for each consultancy; if so, when were tenders called, who was short-listed for each consultancy and when was each consultancy let; and (d) if any consultancy was not the subject of a tender process, why wasn't a proper tender process followed.(3) Did the agency or department work from a list of preferred companies where no formal tender process was followed; if so, who were the short-listed companies and who approved the letting of each consultancy.(4) (a) What was the contracted cost of each consultancy; (b) what was the actual cost of each consultancy; and (c) if there was a variation between the two figures what is the explanation for that variation.4775Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The following answer is based on advice from Airservices Australia, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI), the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DoTRS) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) where indicated. The time period is taken to be the 1997/98 financial year.(1) Airservices: For the year ending 30 June 1998 Airservices let 20 consultancies of $20,000 and above.CASA: For the year ending 30 June 1998, CASA let 146 consultancies. (2) (a) BASI: BASI let one consultancy directly relating to aviation safety.DoTRS: DoTRS let one consultancy relating to aviation safety.(b) BASI: The terms of reference of the consultancy have been provided to the Table Office.DoTRS: The terms of reference of the consultancy have been provided to the Table Office.(c) BASI: A tender was called for the consultancy but because of the extremely specialised nature of the task the tender was restricted to those companies or persons who were considered capable of providing the service required. The following companies/persons were invited to tender:- Southern California Safety Institute- Risk Analysis Services- R2a, Risk and Reliability Associates Pty Ltd- Aviation Hazard Analysis Ltd- Gwyn Associates- Dr Steven Grey- Dr Tony Cox- Mr Pat NeilanFollowing tender evaluation, the tender was let to Aviation Hazard Analysis Ltd on 17 April 1998.DoTRS: Yes. Tenders were called from a shortlist of Expressions of Interest. The tender shortlist comprised:- Deacon Graham James Consulting- Halcrow Pacific- Mitchell Madison Group- Spencer Golding and Associates- Tanner Menzies Pty Ltd- The Allen Consulting Group- Wes Willoughby and AssociatesThe consultancy was let on 14 January 1998(d) There were no relevant consultancies in DoTRS or BASI that were let without a tender process.(3) Airservices: Airservices procurement policy requires all purchases or contractual commitments over $100,000 to be provided through a formal tender process. Consultancies under $100,000 are not required to be subject to tender process. However, depending on the value, at least three quotations are required from selected suppliers before the consultancies are decided. For further control the approval of consultancy expenditure is restricted to the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Managers as follows: Board $250,000; Chief Executive Officer $250,000; Executive and General Managers $50,000.No established list of preferred companies is used due to the diverse needs and wide scope of consultancies used. Where a confined enquiry is used, these have to be approved by the appropriate authority depending on the value of the consultancy as outlined above.The details for Airservices tenders over $100,000 have been provided to the Table Office.CASA: CASA's procurement policy requires all procurement of goods or services over $100,000 to be provided through a formal tender process. Exemptions to this policy may be approved by the Director.By virtue of the above policy, consultancies under $100,000 are not required to be subject to a tender process. However, depending on value, at least three quotations are required before a decision is taken to engage a consultant. Exemptions to the three quotations can only be approved by the Director.Financial Authorisations covering consultancy expenditures are as follows:Director Unlimited under Civil Aviation Act; Assistant Director $100,000; General Manager $50,000; Other Managers $10,000.No established list of preferred companies is used due the diverse needs and wide scope of consultancies used. CASA did, however, utilise some Commonwealth standard PE Consultancy Lists for Information Technology-related services.BASI and DoTRS: Not relevant as both used formal tender process.(4) Airservices: A list of consultancies costing more than $20,000 containing the actual cost of each consultancy has been provided to Table Office. There have been no material variations to contracted cost.CASA: The practice of varying the cost of a consultancy is an exception rather than a rule and can occur for a number of reasons which may result in a net increase or decrease to the contracted cost of the services. Where such variations occur, an amendment to the consultancy agreement would be required. In considering a variation, CASA officers must have regard to the Authority's stated procurement policy including value for money open and effective competition. A list of consultancies for the period considered that includes the actual cost of each has been provided to the Table Office. BASI: The contracted cost for the consultancy was 16,800 English Pounds. There was no variation to this cost.DoTRS: The contracted cost was $32,200. The actual cost was $46,202. The variation was due to payment of allowances for travel, accommodation and other incidental costs.4776(Question No. 185)1854776O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Were notices to airmen (notams) issued in the early days of the trial of the Class G airspace arrangements requiring aircraft to carry holding fuel due to air traffic control (ATC) delays; if so: (a) when were these notams issued; and (b) why were they issued.(2) Would this additional holding fuel apply to high flying aircraft in controlled airspace being controlled by controllers looking after the Class G trial airspace as well.(3) Did this additional fuel load impose a penalty on these aircraft in terms of revenue payload uplifted.(4) Would this requirement cost the airlines money even though their aircraft were not involved in the trial.(5) Does the Government intend to compensate the airlines for these additional costs.(6) What are the criteria against which the success or otherwise of the Class G airspace will be measured.4776Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(a) Thursday 22 October 1998.(b) As a contingency against possible workload from the Class G demonstration, in accordance with the provisions in the Southern District Safety Case.(2) Yes.(3)-(4) This data is not available to the Transport and Regional Services portfolio.(5) No.(6) Had the Demonstration continued, its success would have been assessed against the objectives as stated in the Airspace 2000 Program Definition Plan. A copy of the relevant part of this has been provided to the Table Office. 4777(Question No. 186)1864777O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1998:(1) Is the Government compiling statistics: (a) on the number of times aircraft operating in Class G airspace request radar information service (RIS); and (b) on how many occasions a request has been denied because of the air traffic control (ATC) workload.(2) Are all air traffic service frequencies recorded; if so, why are they recorded.(3)What provision has been made to record the national advisory frequency so that aircraft that notify their movements may be more easily searched for if they disappear.(4) If this frequency is not being recorded, why not.(5) Was the Australian Maritime Safety Authority or Australian Search and Rescue consulted about the recording of the national advisory frequency; if so: (a) when did the consultations take place; (b) who was involved in the consultations; and (c) what was the outcome of those consultations; if not, why not.(6) Is it a fact that prior to the Class G airspace trial pilots were warned, of high-speed low-level military aircraft, such as the F111s, but since the trial began that safety service has ceased.(7) Will the Minister investigate why this important safety service has ceased.4777Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) During the G class airspace trial which ceased in early December 1998, Airservices collected general statistics on the provision of radar information services in terms of the percentage of times the service was provided when requested.(b) During the G class airspace trial, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) collected pilot reports of operations within the trial area which contained references to when RIS was not provided.(2) The High Frequency (HF) and Very High Frequencies (VHF) used by air traffic services personnel are recorded by Airservices Australia. The primary purposes of automatic voice recording are for the investigation of incidents and accidents and for assistance with search and rescue.(3) Airservices Australia did not record the National Advisory Frequency as it was for com munications between pilots, not between pilots and air traffic service personnel.(4) See (3) above.(5) CASA advises that no consultations were initiated with these agencies. CASA is unaware of any concerns by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority or Australian Search and Rescue that this frequency was not recorded.During the demonstration, the search and rescue alerting services continued to be offered on the same frequencies as prior to the demonstration and Airservices continued to monitor and record these frequencies.In the educational material for Class G demonstration airspace, CASA advised pilots of the procedures for emergency calls and the correct frequencies to be used.By way of general information, not all frequencies used by pilots in Class G airspace are monitored and recorded. Those frequencies used for the provision of Air Traffic Services (which includes search and rescue alerting services) and the emergency frequency (121.5) are monitored and recorded. Other frequencies used by pilots in Class G airspace, (for example terminal area frequencies and in addition, for the period of the demonstration, the National Advisory Frequency) are neither monitored nor recorded.(6) Prior to the demonstration commencing, this type of warning took three forms; firstly via the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) service during pre or in-flight briefing, or the on-request service, secondly through the directed traffic information service and thirdly via broadcast on appropriate air traffic service frequencies.It should be noted that broadcasts of the progress of military low-level jet (MLJ) aircraft operating on low jet routes before the demonstration Class G airspace commenced were only required to be made on a workload permitting basis. This caveat means that there can be no guarantee that the broadcasts would have been made on each and every occasion.During the trial, warnings continued to be available, as before the trial, about the operation of high-speed, low-level military jet aircraft via the NOTAM service during pre-flight briefings or through the on-request service. Furthermore, traffic information was available to pilots of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and MLJ aircraft operating in radar coverage in the demonstration Class G airspace. This information took the form of a RIS provided by ATC.Broadcasts of the progress of military aircraft on the low-level portion of a military low jet flight were discontinued in the demonstration Class G airspace. (7) The service recommenced on the cessation of the trial.4778(Question No. 215)2154778O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:With reference to the answer to a question taken on notice during the consideration of estimates hearings on 9 and 10 June 1998 (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Hansard 9 and 10 June 1998. P. 36-37): upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What was the method of payment for each dinner or function and, specifically, was payment made in response to an account: if so, in each case who submitted the account.(2) If any of the dinners or functions were paid for by credit card, was the credit card drawn against an account of the department: if so, in each case who was the officer authorised to use the credit card.(3) Can a list be provided of the location of each dinner or function attended by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development and paid for by the department.4778Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)DATEMETHOD OF PAYMENTSUBMITTED BY2 May 1996Personal Credit CardAllan Hawke17 July 1996Paid on InvoiceSharon Fellows13 August 1996Paid on Invoice (Part)Mary AdamsPersonal Credit Card (Part)Mary Adams26 Sept 1996Paid on InvoiceMary Adams2 Oct 1996Paid on InvoiceAllan Hawke7 Nov 1996Australian Government Credit CardAllan Hawke22 Nov 1996Personal Credit CardChris Falvey28 Nov 1996Paid on InvoiceMary Adams4 Dec 1996Paid on InvoiceMary Adams11 Dec 1996Paid on InvoiceMary Adams18 Feb 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams4 March 1997Personal Credit CardAllan Hawke25 March 1997Paid on InvoiceAllan Hawke8 April 1997Paid on InvoiceAllan Hawke15 May 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams20 May 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams3 June 1997Paid on InvoiceAllan Hawke9 July 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams22 July 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams30 July 1997Australian Government Credit CardAllan Hawke4 August 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams13 August 1997Paid on InvoiceMary Adams25 August 1997Personal Credit CardAllan Hawke3 September 1997Personal Credit CardAllan Hawke(2)DATECREDIT CARD/ACCOUNT 13 August 1996Mary Adam's personal credit card (part payment)2 May 1996Secretary's personal credit card7 Nov 1996Australian Government Credit Card(Allan Hawke authorised card holder)22 Nov 1996Chris Falvey's personal credit card4 March 1997Secretary's personal credit card30 July 1997Australian Government Credit Card(Allan Hawke authorised card holder)25 Aug 1997Secretary's personal credit card3 Sept 1997Secretary's personal credit card(3)DATELOCATION2 MayJuniperberry Restaurant, Canberra17 July 1996Australian Club, Sydney13 August 1996Phillip Street Office, Sydney26 Sept 1996Phillip Street Office, Sydney2 Oct 1996Commonwealth Club, Canberra7 Nov 1996Ottoman Restaurant, Canberra22 Nov 1996Rubira Restaurant, Melbourne28 Nov 1996Phillip Street Office, Sydney4 Dec 1996Parliament House, Canberra11 Dec 1996Parliament House, Canberra18 Feb 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney4 March 1997Ottoman Restaurant, Canberra25 March 1997Commonwealth Club, Canberra8 April 1997Commonwealth Club, Canberra15 May 1997Parliament House, Canberra20 May 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney3 June 1997Commonwealth Club, Canberra9 July 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney22 July 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney30 July 1997Zigollini Restaurant, Indonesia4 Aug 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney13 Aug 1997Phillip Street Office, Sydney25 Aug 1997Ottoman Restaurant, Canberra3 Sept 1997Ottoman Restaurant, Canberra4779(Question No. 343)3434779O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 December 1998:(1) Has the Western Australian (WA) Regional Airspace Advisory Council (RAPAC) passed a motion which "opposes the establishment of Class E Airways in WA and supports retention of Class F airspace (currently named Class G by Airservices Australia) in WA".(2) Was the following resolution passed unanimously by the Western Australian RAPAC at a meeting on 11 November 1998: "The Western Australian RAPAC deplores CASA's handling of the Class G demonstration, in particular the poor planning, unacceptable education program and the service level promises that never eventuated". (3) Can it be confirmed that this is opposition based on industry concerns that the lower base imposes unnecessary air traffic control restrictions/ standards on instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft, it forces IFR crews to operate on two frequencies at once and it will be more hazardous.(4) Has the Minister, or any officer of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority or Airservices Australia, met with the WA RAPAC since the resolution was passed to discuss the council's concerns; if so; (a) when did those discussion take place; (b) who attended those discussions; and (c) what was the outcome of the talks; if not, are any talks with the WA RAPAC planned.4780Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes. However it should be noted that CASA has not defined any criteria for the establishment of Class F airspace in Australia. Therefore, Airservices has not promulgated any Class F airspace in Australia.(2) Yes(3) The concerns expressed in part 3 of this question related to a discussion on Class E corridors—not the Class G demonstration referred to in Part 2 of the questions.(4) Yes, Mr Dick Smith, the former Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority met with representatives of WA RAPAC.(a) The meeting took place on 14 and 15 December 1998;(b) The meeting was attended by a number of industry representatives including members of WA RAPAC; and (c) Issues relating to airspace arrangements were discussed at the meeting. No formal outcomes were recorded.WA RAPAC is sponsored by Airservices Australia and meets every three months.4780(Question No. 411)4114780West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 18 February 1999:(1) When did the Minister or his office first receive a grant request from the Institute of Reproduction and Development at Monash University, or from Professor de Kretser.(2) (a) What communication took place between the Minister and the university, or Professor de Kretser, between then and the Budget announcement of the re-introduction of funding for a men's health program in May 1998; and (b) on what dates did these communications take place. (3) When did the Minister ask the department to enter into negotiations with Professor de Kretser about the possible funding of a centre of excellence at the university.(4) Did the original proposal involve collaboration with other institutions or individuals.(5) Had these institutions and individuals been advised about their collaboration before it appeared in the proposal sent to the Minister.(6) Given that, at estimates hearings on 8 February 1999, it was stated, `the centre at Monash University is regarded as being uniquely placed to be able to perform the functions': (a) who regarded the university as being uniquely placed; (b) why was the university uniquely placed; and (c) can details be provided of the assessment process that took place to enable that conclusion to be drawn.(7) (a) After the announcement in the budget of funding for men's health how many inquiries or expressions of interest, either by phone or in writing, were received from individuals, institutions and organisations and (b) was the response to these inquiries that the National Health and Medical Research Council would be responsible and there would be an advertised bidding process.(9) When was the university or Professor de Kretser formally advised they had been successful with their grant request.(10) What were the criteria and reasons that the Minister used to decide to award the funding to the university without calling for expressions of interest or seeking bids from interested individuals, institutions or organisations.(11) On what date was the agreement to undertake the proposals and spend the money signed.4780Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The original proposal seeking Government support for the establishment of a centre for male sexual and reproductive health was forwarded to my office in mid November 1997.(2) Professor de Kretser forwarded a more developed proposal to the Department on 1 December 1997 following telephone discussion with departmental officers the previous week.(3) Negotiations involving the Department and Professor de Kretser commenced in February 1999.(4) Collaboration with appropriate other research centres was identified in the original proposal.(5) The original proposal does not make clear whether other stakeholders had been approached however this was always Professor de Kretser's intent. (6) (a) I considered the Institute of Reproduction and Development at Monash University uniquely placed to develop the proposed Centre of Excellence in Male Sexual and Reproductive Health as they proposed the development of the Centre to me in the first place.(b) The Institute of Reproduction and Development was selected because of its established credentials and expertise in this field. Professor de Kretser has gained international recognition for research in the field of reproductive biology, infertility and endocrinology. He has published more than 600 papers in national and international peer reviewed journals. He has presented over 65 invited papers at international meetings over the last decade. He has served on the Executive Council of the International Society for Andrology for the past decade including as President and serves on a number of national and international research committees. Research at the Institute has been supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the World Health Organisation, the Ford Foundation, Biotechnology research grants and industry.(c) Professor de Kretser proposed an innovative, collaborative approach to improve male sexual and reproductive health.(7) (a) Twelve telephone inquiries were received following the 1998 Budget announcement. No formal submissions or expressions of interest were received.(b) The response given to these inquiries at that time was that the Department was awaiting advice from my office about an appropriate funding allocation process.(9) A grant agreement has not been entered into. Professor de Kretser, in his capacity as Director, of the Institute of Reproduction and Development, Monash University, has been made aware that the Institute will lead the collaboration for the development and establishment of the Centre of Excellence in Male Sexual and Reproductive Health.(10) The submission from the Institute of Reproduction and Development proposes an innovative collaborative approach to address male sexual and reproductive health.(11) As yet no formal agreement has been signed with Monash University for the Centre of Excellence as details for inclusion in the formal grant agreement are still being discussed.4781(Question No. 418)4184781Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 February 1999:(1) (a) What are the maximum hourly movement rates that the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) considers safe for operations in a mandatory broadcast zone with: (i) parallel runways in operation, and (ii) a single runway in operation; and (b) is there any difference between day and night operations.(2) At what hourly movement rate does CASA consider that a mandatory broadcast zone should be upgraded to have an aerodrome control service (an air traffic control tower) with: (a) parallel runways in operation; and (b) a single runway in operation.(3) (a) What are the criteria which require the establishment of aerodrome control services at an aerodrome; and (b) what are the criteria that allow the disestablishment of aerodrome control services at an aerodrome.(4) (a) Is CASA aware of the reduction in hours of operation of air traffic control that recently occurred at Moorabbin; and (b) is CASA satisfied, from a safety point of view, with the operations at Moorabbin outside the hours of operation of the air traffic control tower.(5) (a) Is it a fact that outside the hours of operation of air traffic control tower at Moorabbin there is a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) restricting the number of aircraft in the traffic circuit around the aerodrome to five.(6) (a) How is this restriction of five aircraft policed; (b) if another aircraft wishes to operate in the circuit who arbitrates as to whose `go it is'; (c) is there any monitoring of the aircraft limit; and (d) on how many occasions, since the reduction in air traffic control tower operating hours, has the limit been exceeded.(7) If the five aircraft limit is exceeded then how does CASA go about taking action against those who failed to comply with the NOTAM which is a legal document, for example would it be the pilot of the last aircraft which entered the circuit who is prosecuted.(8) (a) What was the reason for the recent reduction in air traffic control tower operating hours at Moorabbin; (b) what safety studies were undertaken before the reduction occurred; (c) can a copy of the safety studies be provided; and (d) is Airservices Australia satisfied, from a safety point of view, with the operations at Moorabbin outside the hours of operation of the air traffic control tower.(9) (a) Is it correct to assume that the way in which Airservices Australia determines air traffic control tower operating hours is by looking at movement rates over a long period of time and then using predetermined formula or criteria based on traffic movement rates to set the hours of operation; and (b) can details of these formula or criteria be provided.(10) (a) Is it a fact that, in the case of Bankstown airport, Airservices Australia is considering a proposal to reduce the air traffic control tower operating hours to eight a day; (b) what is the reason for this proposed reduction; and (c) if it is costs versus income, then what is the cause of the reduction in Airservices Australia's income at Bankstown.(11) Rather than looking at aircraft movements per hour as the criteria for establishing the proposed new tower operating hours, is it a fact that Airservices Australia determined that the income at Bankstown was only sufficient to pay for 8 hours a day, and that Airservices Australia then put this to the aircraft operators at Bankstown and advised that if they wanted more than 8 hours a day, they would have to pay the full costs for providing those additional hours.(12) (a) Is it a fact that the safety case Airservices Australia prepared to justify that it is safe to reduce tower operating hours determined that any more than 50 movements an hour was less than safe in a mandatory broadcast zone than if the control tower was operating; and (b) how was the rate of 50 movements an hour determined.(13) Is it a fact that outside the proposed new Bankstown tower operating hours, there were frequently more than 50 movements an hour, making the area around Bankstown less safe and that, despite this, Airservices Australia's management was prepared to accept the risk; if so, on what basis was this decision made.(14) Has Airservices Australia given any consideration to the fact that movements at Bankstown may increase outside tower operating hours due to it being cheaper to operate when the tower is not operating.(15) What consultation has Airservices Australia undertaken with local residents and councils in the area around Bankstown regarding the proposed reduced tower operating hours.(16) What is Airservices Australia's position in regards to the provisions of air traffic control services at locations where the income is insufficient to cover the costs of providing air traffic control services, for example, will Airservices Australia be cross-subsidising the provision of services at low income producing locations from other high income producing activities, or will Airservices Australia be pursuing government funding as a community service obligation.4782Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) I am advised that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) does not specify maximum hourly movement rates for operations in mandatory broadcast zones.(2) (a) and (b) CASA would take into consideration annual rather than hourly rates and the mix of traffic for assessing whether an uncontrolled aerodrome may be a candidate for establishment of an air traffic control tower.(3) CASA is in the process of developing a detailed and transparent safety regulatory framework for the provision of air traffic services which would prescribe operating standards and establishment and disestablishment criteria for tower air traffic services.(a) Currently, a process originally developed by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is followed.(b) See (a) above.(4) (a) Yes.(b) I am advised that since the situation was reviewed in January 1999 and tower hours were changed, the CASA District Office (based at Moorabbin Airport) considers the procedure is operating successfully.(5) I am advised by CASA that there are procedures in place at Moorabbin Airport during the hours when the tower is not operating, including a restriction of five aircraft in the circuit area.(6) (a) I am advised that this restriction is self-regulated, with breaches of the restrictions to be reported to CASA for action.(b) I am advised that this is determined by the pilots.(c) Yes. As part of the post implementation review of the changes at Moorabbin Airport, a flight monitoring program is being conducted by Airservices. This monitoring commenced on 13 March and will continue until 11 April 1999.(d) Nil since the monitoring program commenced 13 March 1999.(7) The pilot of the aircraft that caused the special procedure to be breached would be liable for that breach.(8) (a) Airservices Australia advises that the reason for reducing the hours was to more closely align the hours during which an air traffic service is provided with current traffic demand.(b) Airservices advises that it conducted a workshop on hazard identification and risk assessment relating to the proposed new air traffic arrangements. The recommendations arising from the workshop were addressed by Airservices management and documented in the Airservices' safety case.(c) Yes. Airservices has advised that it will make available the relevant safety documents to the Senator's office.(d) As advised above, Airservices is currently monitoring aircraft movements outside the tower hours of operation, and is ready to make alterations to arrangements where experience shows safety or customers require such changes. Already since the new arrangements were introduced and as part of the ongoing monitoring processes, Airservices has modified the hours of operation to better serve the pattern of traffic demand.(9) (a) No. I am advised by Airservices that changes to tower operating hours are only made after a detailed analytical process to ensure safety is not compromised.(b) See (a) above.(10) (a) No. However, in response to a proposal put to Airservices by users at Bankstown Airport, options for reducing tower hours were considered.(b) See (a) above.(c) See (a) above.(11) No.(12) (a) No. The Bankstown proposal for reduced hours of operations did not proceed.(b) As part of the safety case prepared to assess the proposal put to Airservices by users at Bankstown Airport, the rate of 50 movements per hour was an initial input. However in the case of Moorabbin Airport, development of the safety case demonstrated that a rate of up to 100 movements per hour (that is, 50 circuits per hour) was consistent with long established procedures for aircraft operations at Moorabbin outside the current hours of air traffic control coverage.(13) Airservices confirms that the rejected proposal for Bankstown Airport included consideration of tower hours that would have frequently resulted in more than 50 movements per hour outside the proposed tower hours.(14) Yes.(15) The proposal for reducing hours at Bankstown was not progressed to a stage where wide consultation was appropriate.(16) In recognition of the potential impact of Airservices' move to location specific charges and the potential for this to adversely affect some businesses at locations with relatively low levels of traffic, the Government is providing $13m over two years to permit the progressive introduction of location specific charges at general aviation and several regional airports. Airservices and the airline sector of the aviation industry, through a temporary surcharge, are also contributing to the transitional arrangements.A sensible way of reducing the cost of air traffic control at these locations is for Airservices to contract it out. The Senate unwisely rejected this approach.4783(Question No. 429)4294783O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, how many horse racing and dog racing businesses in each state and territory operated in the 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.(2) How many of these businesses were engaged in the racing industry as their primary activity.(3) (a) How much income was generated; and (b) what level of expenses was incurred by these industries in the above financial years.(4) What was the value of final consumption expenditure on totalisator agency services in the above financial years.(5) How many thoroughbred, harness racing and greyhound meetings were operated by racing clubs in the above financial years.(6) According to ABS data; (a) what was the value of exports from horse studs in the above financial years; and (b) how many horse breeders, horse trainers, jockeys, horse and dog racing officials, stud hands or stable hands, bookmakers, bookmaker's clerks, betting agency managers and betting clerks by state and territory operated, or were employed, in the above financial years.4783Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The ABS conducted a survey of businesses in the horse and dog racing industry in respect of 1994-95. The survey was confined to employing businesses whose main activity was in the horse and dog racing industry as defined by the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification. The results of that survey showed the following:Number of BusinessesNew South Wales290Victoria245Queensland144South Australia85Western Australia88Tasmania34Northern Territory5Australian Capital Territory8Australia898Information for the 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years is not available.(3) (a) Total income of the above businesses in 1994-95 was $789.1 million.(b) Total expenses of the above businesses in 1994-95 were $738.9 million.(4) The ABS does not collect this information.(5) The ABS survey in respect of 1994-95 of the horse and dog racing industry showed the following:Number of MeetingsNew South Wales2,695Victoria1,443Queensland1,678South Australia694Western Australia636Tasmania293Northern Territory146Australian Capital Territory111Australia7,695Information for the 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years is not available.(6)(a) The total value of exports from horse studs was as follows:($million) FOB*1994-9538.21995-9645.21996-9742.81997-9863.8* Free on Board.(b) The following table presents results from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing. This information refers to the week before Census day(6 August 1996). The table shows the number of persons who reported their main occupation to be in the agriculture, horse and dog racing or gambling industries.Horse breederBook-makerJockeyHorse or dog racing officialHorse trainerStud hand or stable handNSW36512020674453687Vic.2727618865366499Qld1747419644278347SA8223483292141 WA98228240151182Tas.121323123435NT412155169ACT0575128Aust.1,0073457652771,4021908Manager, Administrator, etc*Betting Agency Counter ClerkBookmaker's ClerkOther Betting ClerksTotalNSW83731109692897Vic.105408562452280Qld3633267621610SA201104641635WA211542014784Tas.134989208NT72786109ACT8103967Aust.29318213174558590* Betting agency managers are not separately identified.Information for the 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years is not available.4785(Question No. 455)4554785Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many senators and members have utilised the entitlement that provides a supplementary budget for the purchase of additional publications in support of parliamentary activities (Senators and Members Entitlements 1998, p.30).(2) What has been the cost to the Commonwealth of this supplementation in the 1997-98 financial year.4785Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 44 Senators and 110 Members in 1997-98(2) $49,762.53.4785(Question No. 464)4644785Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:How many Electorate Offices have opted to engage staff classified as A, B C (Option 1) and how many have opted to engage staff classified B, B B (Option 2).4785Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The staffing structures are:Option 1 126Option 2 984785(Question No. 468)4684785Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of advertising electorate office relocations in the 1997-98 financial year.4785Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:$10,283.54.4785(Question No. 515)5154785Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What principles determine whether regional forest agreement (RFA) information is classified as `restricted', `general' or `public domain'.(2) With reference to the Tasmanian RFA, why does the public not have the right to access data about public assets collected with public money.(3) Why are the following Tasmanian state-wide data sets classified as `restricted': (a) forest vegetation communities; (b) rare or threatened forest communities; (c) forest vegetation classes; (d) high quality old-growth forest of national estate significance; (e) rare, endangered or uncommon old-growth forests of national estate significance; (f) old-growth forests; (g) species site locations for the comprehensive regional assessment (excluding threatened species as necessary); (h) timber harvesting history; (i) forest users' survey; and (j) business dependency survey.4786Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that arrangements for access to RFA information recognise legitimate issues of ownership, intellectual property and sensitivity of the information. Clause 90 and Attachment 14 of the Tasmanian RFA set out the conditions governing access and use of restricted, general and public domain data sets.(2) The Tasmanian RFA provides for access, including public access, to the data used for RFA purposes. `Public domain' data is freely available to the public without restriction. `General' data is available to third parties by agreement with one of the data owners. `Restricted' data is considered sensitive by a data owner and is only available to third parties by agreement of both data owners on a case by case basis. The `restricted' category provides for a degree of scrutiny of requests for sensitive information. However, I am advised that access has generally been granted where confidentiality, commercial and protection of fauna and flora considerations are not an issue.(3) I am advised that the data sets listed in the honourable Senator's question include information provided by one or more third parties, who have specified conditions on its use during RFA development and on its availability after the RFA was signed. For example, data sets may include information relating to private land and/or may include material that is commercially sensitive. In relation to (g), it is not possible to easily exclude information on threatened species from the species site locations for the comprehensive regional assessment. These values may be put at risk if the locations became widely known. 4786(Question No. 520)5204786Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4786Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) $6,611(b) $1,751(c) nil4786(Question No. 526)5264786Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4786Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The total cost of providing newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the Minister for Health and Aged Care during the 1997-98 financial year as provided by the Department of Health and Aged Care is:(a) Cost of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals provided to the Parliament House office—$7,277.70.(b) Cost of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals provided to the home/state ministerial office—$928.90.(c) Cost of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals provided to private home—Nil 4787(Question No. 532)5324787Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4787Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) Nil.(b) Nil.(c) Nil.4787(Question No. 535)5354787Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4787Newman, 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:(a) $3265.15, representing the cost of newspapers and magazines.(b) nil(c) nil4787(Question No. 543)5434787Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.4787Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) Nil.(b) Nil.(c) Nil.4787(Question No. 547)5474787Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice on 9 March 1999:(1) That was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b), which firms, or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.4787Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $50,000 estimate only(2) No forecast was made(3) (a) Planning stage for the move to accrual accounting.(b) Decision Modelling Group(4) (a) 3 days(b) $1,000 per day(c) $3,000(5) (a) $60,000(b) $19,000(6) $400,000 4788(Question No. 549)5494788Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b)which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.4788Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) While the Department of Transport and Regional Services has, for a number of years, as required by Financial Statement Guidelines, prepared full year financial statements according to accrual accounting principles, it did not move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year. Like the majority of budget sector agencies in the APS, preparation of financial statements for 1997-98 was undertaken by a process of identifying the necessary elements and adjusting cash-based transactional information following the end of the financial year.(2) The Department of Transport and Regional Services has not prepared any forecast of estimated expenditure for the move to accrual accounting (to be introduced from 1 July 1999 in accordance with the Government's financial management reforms). The introduction of accrual accounting, along with other improvements in financial management, has been recognised as a priority of financial management units of the Department and will be met within existing work plans. (3) (a) and (b) During 1997-98, the Department of Transport and Regional Services began implementation of a new, SAP R/3-based, financial management information system to facilitate the introduction of improved financial management information and processes. These improvements include the introduction of accrual accounting and wider financial management reforms to be introduced from 1 July 1999.SAP Australia was contracted to implement the new financial management information system. Acumen Alliance was engaged to provide quality assurance over the implementation process.During 1998-99, the Department has also engaged training consultants to provide workshops specifically in relation to the Government's financial management reforms, including the concepts of accrual accounting. These providers included Chris Adams and Associates, BRW Financial Training, the Canberra Institute of Technology, and the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants.(4) (a), (b) and (c) SAP was engaged on a fixed price contract of $1.527m. The implementation was staged over a period of approximately 9 months, with the new system commencing operations in early October 1998. Acumen Alliance provided regular services over a period of approximately 6 months at a total cost of $82,954.The training consultants engaged during 1998-99 included Chris Adams and Associates (12 days for a total cost of $18,375), BRW Financial Training (7 days for a total cost of $12,800), the Canberra Institute of Technology (3 days for a total cost of $3,220), and the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants (3 days for a total cost of $4,875).(5) (a) The Department of Transport and Regional Services will not implement accrual accounting for 1998-99, but will commence regular accounting on this basis from 1 July 1999 in accordance with the Government's financial management reforms. The Department has not prepared any forecast of estimated expenditure during 1998-99 to prepare for the move to accrual accounting next financial year. This, along with other improvements in financial management, has been recognised as a priority of financial management units of the Department and will be met within existing work plans.(b) The total costs of consultants employed, in both 1997-98 and 1998-99, for preparing to move to accrual accounting next financial year is outlined in the answer for question 4.(6) See the answer to question 5(a) and (b) in relation to the cost of consultants engaged in relation to preparation for the introduction of accrual accounting. Internal resources have also been involved in this area. While a priority issue, this has been treated as part of the normal operation of financial management units within the Department. Costs specific to the introduction of accrual accounting can therefore not be identified.4789(Question No. 556)5564789Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.4789Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The introduction of accrual accounting in the Department of Health and Aged Care has been accompanied by wider financial reforms affecting all areas of the Department's financial management. For this reason, it is not possible to comprehensively identify expenditure related to accrual accounting alone.4789(Question No. 563)5634789Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.4789Newman, 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) Not available. The increased workload in moving to accrual accounting was undertaken by Departmental staff, but the effort involved has not been recorded(3) Nil in 1997-98(4) Nil in 1997-98(5) No outside consultants were engaged to advise on accrual accounting(6) Full cost not available, as the increased workload in 1998-99 was in the main undertaken by Departmental staff. However, $330,000 has been allocated in additional funds for training of DVA staff in National Office and all State Offices, and hiring of temporary staff to assist with the implementation of accrual accounting.4789(Question No. 574)5744789Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources. 4790Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department was $2,554,339.(2) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from legal firms was $72,350.4790(Question No. 576)5764790Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the Department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the Department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.4790Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The total cost to the (then) Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the 1997/98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department was $2,368,611. This figure includes disbursement costs such has external counsel fees, photocopying and courier charges.(2) The total cost to the (then) Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the 1997/98 financial year of legal advice obtained from other external sources was $1,471,007. Legal advice was also obtained from the Department's in-house lawyers, however, the costs of these legal services for the 1997/98 financial year cannot be readily quantified.4790(Question No. 581)5814790Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department.(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.4790Newman, 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) $661,629.(2) $528,596. This figure covers both solicitors' and barristers' fees.4790(Question No. 582)5824790O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) How many people have been appointed to the position of Manager, Sydney Tower at Kingsford Smith Airport since March 1996.(2) What was the name and what were the qualifications of each manager.(3) What was the term of each manager in that position.(4) What was the reason or reasons for each manager leaving that position.4790Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has provided the following information:(1)—(4) See table below. Note that in November 1997 the Tower Manager and Terminal Manager positions were incorporated into a new Air Traffic Control (ATC) Manager position.NameTerm of AppointmentQualificationsReason for leaving positionMr D WilliamsMar `96-Apr `96Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and TowerActing Tower Manager. Replaced by permanent appointee.Mr G MarksApr `96-Jan `97Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and TowerResigned.Mr J TerlichJan `97-Apr `97Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and TowerActing Tower Manager. Replaced by permanent appointee.Mr S DickensApr `97-Dec `97Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Tower.Tower Manager position abolished with consolidation of Tower and Terminal Manager functions. Mr Dickens seconded to another position.Mr G BatemanDec `97-Jan `98Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and Tower.Acting Tower Manager until new ATC Manager position filled.Mr J LudlowJan `98-Jul `98Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and Tower.Mr Ludlow seconded to Management Review Team in July 1998. Sydney Operations restructured in September 1998 and all management positions spilled. Mr Ludlow did not apply for ATC Manager position.Mr J TerlichJul `98-Nov `98Held an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and TowerActing ATC Manager. Replaced by permanent appointee.Ms D DickensNov `98-presentHeld an Air Traffic Control Licence and was rated for Terminal and Tower.4792(Question No. 583)5834792Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has the Howard Government done to compensate and settle the claims of former Christmas Islanders who were re-settled and repatriated from the island to mainland Australia and South-East Asia.(2) What has the department done to comply with its international obligations on human rights and not discriminate against former islanders of Asian origin in their re-settlement and repatriation from Christmas Island.(3) (a) On what basis did the department repatriate and re-settle permanent residents and Australian citizens of Asian origin on the island to mainland Australia and South-East Asia; and (b) was the repatriation and re-settlement consistent with Australia's international obligations, the requirements of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the human rights of the islanders.(4) Does the department regard the special status of the islanders as a quasi-indigenous population; if not, why did the officials of the department refer to the islanders in such a way (correspondence from CE Reseigh for Secretary, Department of Territories to the General Manager, British Phosphate Commissioners, 4 June 1964).(5) For what reasons and when did the provident fund described in a Cabinet minute, dated 16 September 1976, and all other funds for the benefit of the inhabitants of the island cease to have sufficient funds to provide for the same.(6) (a) Why were a majority of the islanders of Asian origin repatriated and re-settled between 1970-78 not paid compensation from the provident fund or by the Commonwealth; and (b) why were they repatriated to South-East Asia rather than mainland Australia.(7) Was it a deliberate policy of the department to repatriate islanders of Asian origin to South-East Asia without compensation and to minimise the amount of compensation paid to those islanders.(8) Considering the compensation made to the South Sea Islanders, Ocean Islanders and Nauru: Why has the Howard Government not compensated the former islanders by government grants, full-time welfare officers, providing funds for building temples of worship or other compensation; and (b) why has the government not granted the former islanders the same status as that of the South Sea Islanders. (9) (a) What funds have been paid pursuant to the Re-settlement Assistance Scheme or other funds established for the benefit of the inhabitants of Christmas Island as announced by Cabinet and the Minister for Territories in 1958 and 1976; (b) what amounts were available; and (c) for what matters were they expended.(10) (a) Why did the department allow the Asian inhabitants of Christmas Island to be used as indentured or `sweated labour' analogous to that of the South Sea Islanders in Queensland; and (b) was it for the purpose of minimising the cost of production of phosphate from the island for the benefit of the Commonwealth and the farming industry of Australia.(11) Why did the Christmas Island Administration, as a part of the department, segregate and pay discriminatory wages to the Asian inhabitants of the island compared to that of white Australians on the island.4792Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Part of the question covers matters which are presently being litigated in the Western Australian Supreme Court and it would not be appropriate for me to answer. The remaining matters go back more than forty years and are not currently active. I am sure the Senator would appreciate that to respond would involve a number of officers and many staff hours, including an extensive archival search for files. Given this, I am not prepared to authorise the resources to answer this question. If the Senator has any questions regarding any current or recent past concerns on Christmas Island, then I would be happy to assist the Senator.4792(Question No. 586)5864792O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 March 1999:(1) How many aircraft were required to do "go arounds" at Sydney Airport: (a) in the 1996-97 financial year; (b) in the 1997-98 financial year; and (c) since 1 July 1998.(2) On each occasion what: (a) was the reason for the aircraft being forced to do a "go around"; and (b) who made the decision that the aircraft should abort its landing.(3) What grading did the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation give to each incident.4792Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) 272 in the 1996-97 financial year.(b) 302 in the 1997-98 financial year.(c) 144 in the seven month period 1 July 1998 to 31 January 1999Minister Sharp provided the following information in response to a similar question from Mr McClelland (Question upon Notice 1734) in August 1997.In 1992 there were 247 aborted landings. In 1993 there were 271 aborted landings. In 1994 there were 313 aborted landings. In 1995 there were 289 aborted landings. In 1996 there were 293 aborted landings.(2) Airservices Australia has advised that "go arounds" are a normal part of the air traffic management safety system, and form a routine element of pilot training. They may be initiated by the pilot or under the direction of air traffic control and can occur for a variety of reasons such as weather conditions, mechanical circumstances and air traffic management. Unless an air safety incident is associated with a "go around", no formal incident report is required to be submitted. As a result, the only way of answering the questions comprehensively and properly would be for Airservices Australia staff to extract the details of each "go around" from the tower log books. I am not prepared to authorise the considerable use of resources and staff time that would be needed to generate the information.(3) BASI is not normally notified of each "go around", unless the "go around" is associated with an incident. In those circumstances, the majority of occurrences reported to BASI are assessed as category 4 occurrences. Category 4 occurrences are those where the facts do not indicate a serious safety deficiency.4793(Question No. 601)6014793O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 March 1999:(1) With reference to a statement issued in January 1998, did the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) say that Airservices Australia had agreed to "revert to standard crosswind and downwind criteria, (25 and 5 knots respectively), for all runways to increase the availability of the east-west runway". (2) Were the wind limits set at 20 knots for crosswinds and 5 knots for tail winds at the time of the statement.(3) (a) When was the 20 knot crosswind limit set; and (b) on what basis was that setting put in place.(4) What role did the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) play in the setting of this limit.(5) Did the then Minister request that Airservices Australia change the crosswind and tail wind limits.(6) Was that request in the form of a ministerial direction.(7) What was the technical basis for the request or direction to Airservices Australia to vary these limits.(8) What role did CASA and BASI play in the setting of this new limit.(9) If the request to vary the maximum wind limits was not made by the Minister: (a) who made the request; and (b) what was the basis of that request.(10) What percentage of aircraft movements each month used runway 25 between: (a) 1 April 1996 and 30 July 1997; (b) 1 August 1997 and 31 December 1997; and (c) 1 January 1998 and 1 March 1999.4793Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) Airservices Australia advises that the interim runway selection criteria at the time of the statement were 20 knots of crosswind and no downwind. However, to facilitate an orderly transition to alternative runways, operations were permitted to continue with up to 5 knots of downwind.(3) Airservices Australia advises that the answer to the questions are:(a) August 1997.(b) To facilitate the introduction of runway modes of operation 5 and 14A.(4) I am advised that CASA was consulted on the safety case prepared for the introduction of Modes 5 and 14A. BASI was not involved in the preparation of the safety case.(5) No.(6) Not applicable.(7) Not applicable.(8) I am advised that CASA participated in the post-implementation review of the operation of Modes 5 and 14A. BASI was not involved in this review.(9) The decision to revert to the previous Sydney downwind and crosswind criteria was made by Airservices Australia following a post-implementation review of the operation of Modes 5 and 14A(10) (a) Apr-96 2.9%; May-96 5.5%; Jun-96 9.2%; Jul-96 9.9%; Aug-96 10.2%; Sep-96 8.9%; Oct-96 5.3%; Nov-96 3.2%; Dec-96 2.2%; Jan-97 0.5%; Feb-97 0.6%; Mar-97 0.5%; Apr-97 3.6%; May-97 2.7%; Jun-97 6.0%; Jul-97 4.9%.(b) Aug-97 13.1%; Sep-97 5.4%; Oct-97 4.8%; Nov-97 3.7%; Dec-97 2.5%.(c) Jan-98 4.9%; Feb-98 5.2%; Mar-98 3.1%; Apr-98 6.6%; May-98 9.3%; Jun-98 11.7%; Jul-98 14.2%; Aug-98 7.2%; Sep-98 7.5%; Oct-98 10.7%; Nov-98 2.8%; Dec-98 3.2%; Jan-99 1.8%; Feb-99 2.3%; Mar-99 3.8%.4794(Question No. 602)6024794O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 March 1999:(1) When did the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) instruct Airservices Australia to re-open the east-west runway (runway 25).(2) What maximum cross wind and tail wind speeds were placed on the use of runway 25.(3) (a) Who determined those maximum wind speeds; and (b) on what basis were those levels set.4794Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 20 March 1996.(2) Maximum crosswind of 25 knots and no downwind(3) (a) Airservices Australia.(b) The wind limits were those in place prior to the opening of the parallel runway.4794(Question No. 603)6034794O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 March 1999:(1) Did the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) direct Airservices Australia to review the flight paths for Sydney runway operations.(2) (a) When was that review completed; and (b) when were its findings reported to the Minister.(3) As a result of that review did Airservices Australia, or any other agency recommend a maximum cross wind and tail wind speed for aircraft using runway 25; if so (a) what were the maximum wind speeds; (b) from what date did those limits apply; and (c) what was the basis for that recommendation.4794Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) (a) and (b) 16 December 1996.(3)The review report contained no recommendations on maximum crosswind or downwind criteria for use of the east-west runway.4794(Question No. 604)6044794Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1999:With reference to the huge debt incurred by the world's poorest nations and their increasing inability to repay their donor countries:(1) Does the Minister agree that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative makes an important advance in international debt relief strategies to enable human and social development in some of the world's poorest nations.(2) (a) Does the Government support this initiative; and (b) in what practical ways will the Government demonstrate that it is committed to poverty reduction and human development not only in our region but throughout the world.(3) Can a list be provided of the countries that owe a debt to Australia.(4) What are the levels of that debt.(5) What goods or services have been purchased by those countries to incur that debt.(6) What would the impact on Australia's economy be, if Australia were to retire the debt of those nations in accordance with a heavily indebted poor countries initiative, such as Jubilee 2000.4794Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government agrees that the World Bank/IMF Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative is the most important recent initiative to reduce the external debt of HIPC countries to sustainable levels. Moreover, it is the most credible way of achieving long-term debt sustainability. The Government agrees that this, in turn, assists human and social development. Unsustainable debt has increasingly been recognised as a constraint on the ability of poor countries to pursue sustainable development and alleviate poverty.(2) (a) The Government is a strong supporter of the HIPC Initiative which was introduced by the World Bank and IMF in 1996 to provide concerted and comprehensive debt relief to HIPC countries that have demonstrated a commitment to structural reform and sound economic policies. The HIPC Initiative reflects the view that debt relief without true adjustment would be wasted. To qualify for relief, a country must be eligible for concessional assistance from the IMF and World Bank, face an unsustainable debt burden beyond available debt-relief mechanisms such as the Paris Club, and establish a track-record of reform and sound policies through IMF and World bank-sponsored programs of up to six years. To date, the World Bank and IMF have agreed to extend assistance to seven countries and many more are expected to have relief packages in place by the year 2000. The Initiative has so far committed US$6.1 billion in debt relief. The Treasurer announced in June 1998 an Australian contribution of $30.5 million.(2) (b) The Government's approach to poverty reduction and human development in our own region and worldwide was set out most recently in my Eighth Annual Statement to Parliament on Australia's Development Cooperation Program in December 1998 and, before that, in the seventh annual statement, Better Aid for a Better Future, tabled in parliament in November 1997. Those documents set out the framework for Australia's approach to development cooperation, including through an emphasis on the five sectors of health, agriculture and rural development, education, governance, and infrastructure. Australia's practical commitment was demonstrated through the allocation in 1998-99 of almost $1.5 billion in overseas aid to develop and implement development cooperation projects and programs in partnership with recipient countries.(3) Of the 40 countries classified by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, three—Ethiopia, Nicaragua and Vietnam—have sovereign debts with Australia.(4) The levels of debt owed to Australia as at 30 December 1998 from those countries classified as HIPCs are: Ethiopia ($15.3 million), Nicaragua ($5.7 million) and Vietnam ($67.6 million).(5) The debt owed by Ethiopia is on an aid-related loan written in 1990-1991 under the former Development Import Finance Facility for sugar cane milling equipment. The debt owed by Nicaragua is on a 1986 export credit loan for sugar cane harvesting equipment, provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC). This debt was rescheduled in 1991. In negotiations at the Paris Club at that time, Australia extended the term to 25 years and agreed to a grace period of 14 years. As a result, the first instalment of principal on this debt is not due until 2007. Further, at a meeting of the Paris Club on 9 December 1998, all creditors agreed to defer all repayments of debt—including interest—owed by Nicaragua (and Honduras) until 2001, when there will be further discussion of the issue. The debt owed by Vietnam consists of 11 export credit loans provided by EFIC. The range of projects and products supported with these loans have included a fruit and vegetable processing plant, an abattoir, a coal processing plant, metallic telephone cabling, a sugar refining plant, sugar cane milling equipment and a digital automatic data processing machine.(6) If Australia was to retire the bilateral sovereign debt of the three HIPC countries listed at (3) above, the extent to which debt was forgiven on a mutually agreed basis would impact on expected future Government revenues. The impact would occur over the debt amortisation period equivalent to the debt forgiven. The impact on the Australian economy would not be significant in overall macroeconomic terms.The Government acknowledges the genuine motivation behind calls for debt cancellation by the Jubilee 2000 Coalition and others, but has reservations about Jubilee 2000 proposals for cancellation of all "unpayable" debts. Debt relief without the type of conditions imposed under the HIPC Initiative has the potential to shield governments from their responsibilities and may be seen as a reward for poor economic performance. In addition, relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 could encourage further accumulation of unsustainable debt and discourage creditors. Debt in itself is not a "bad" thing as international flows of capital are essential for countries to grow; new loans are continually being taken out and thus there will never come a time when "the slate is wiped clean".4795(Question No. 605)6054795Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KnowlesTH4WALP10 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1999.With reference to the recent suspected suicide death in London of an Aboriginal male, born in 1972 of Denis Walker and Cheryl Buchanan, and an interview given at the time by the paternal grandmother, Kath Walker (reprinted in various newspapers in March 1999) which reported that the parents had decided to put the child up for adoption because of their involvement with Aboriginal politics, principally the tent embassy in Canberra, and that this involvement made it impossible to care for the child.(1) Under these circumstances, on what grounds has the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) justified spending an alleged amount of $80,000 to fund a legal case to determine parenthood.(2) How many people and to whom is this amount of funding being directly provided.(3) (a) How many people not directly employed by the Aboriginal Legal Service are being provided with funds from the grant; and (b) who are these people.(4) Given that the mother signed the adoption papers in 1972, is there any evidence that she tried to retrieve her son prior to their first meeting in 1996.(5) On what basis has ATSIC decided that this is a case of the `stolen generation' as opposed to a legal adoption.4796Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's questions:(1) Ms Buchanan maintains that Mr Branfield was taken from her on the day of his birth, 5 February 1972. Documents have been produced which show that Ms Buchanan signed adoption papers for her son. However, she maintains that she has no recollection of signing any papers and that she was heavily medicated at the time she was alleged to have signed the papers. She insists that she would never have knowingly signed adoption papers for her newborn son.Her son was placed in State care until he was adopted by an English couple by the name of Childs in 1974. The Childs family took Mr Branfield to England in 1975. Ms Buchanan and her family spent many years searching for Mr Branfield. In 1996 they were finally reunited and Mr Branfield came to Australia for a short visit with his natural family. Mr Branfield was killed on 20 July 1998 when a bus in Norwich England hit him.The ATSIC Board of Commissioners agreed to the provision of up to $80,000 for the purpose of meeting legal and associated costs in relation to the repatriation of Illych Marbuck Branfield's remains, in the interests of ensuring the cultural well-being of the deceased and his family. The question parenthood is not in dispute. ATSIC has requested that if at all possible this matter be dealt with through a process of consultation and mediation rather than litigation.(2) The ATSIC Board of Commissioners agreed to provide up to $80,000 to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Services Secretariat (NAILSS). The role of NAILSS's is to monitor legal representation by Ms Buchanan's English counsel and to ensure the accountability of the English counsels and Ms Buchanan's expenses. NAILSS fee for its services has been limited to a maximum of $2,000.(3) (a) Two.(b) David Truex and Company, the English firm of solicitors acting on behalf of Ms Buchanan, and Ms Buchanan are being provided with funds from the grant. Up to $60,000 has been specified for legal expenses and $18,000 for Ms Buchanan to travel to England to attend the legal proceedings or mediation.(4) Ms Buchanan and her family tried locate her child, Illych Branfield, from the time she was released from hospital after his birth. Ms Buchanan maintains that she was contacted by Queensland's Children's Services Department immediately after her release but was refused details of Mr Branfield's location on the grounds that he had been adopted. However he was not actually adopted until 2 years later.Ms Buchanan continued to approach the Childrens' Services Department and other government departments following the loss of her son seeking information on his whereabouts. She was assisted in her efforts by JIGSAW, a group who provided help to parents in tracing children that had been adopted. It was not until 1995 when changed legislation allowed her to gain information which revealed Mr Branfield had moved to England. He was finally located in 1996 in England by his maternal grandparents, Pondijyfljydu (Una Branfield) and Gnarnyarrhe Waitarie.(5) ATSIC's decision was based on the claim by Ms Buchanan that her son was taken from her after his birth in 1972 and given away for adoption without her permission. Ms Buchanan claims that Mr Branfield was effectively stolen from his Indigenous culture as well as his natural family.4796(Question No. 607)6074796Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:With reference to the proposed Navy ammunitioning facility at Twofold Bay: (1) What net explosive quantity is being assumed.(2) How many days each year will ammunitioning operations take place.(3) (a) Where will the wharf and storage facilities be located; and (b) can a map be provided.(4) Will dredging be required; if so: (a) what length of channel will need to be dredged; (b) to what depth; and (c) what quantity of spoil will need to be disposed of.(5) Will ammunition need to be transported to Eden by land; if so: (a) where from; (b) how often; and (c) which routes will be used.(6) What incompatible activities will be excluded from within the green, yellow and purple lines.(7) Will there be any circumstances where a public risk waiver might be required.(8) Will the facility be used for commercial purposes; if so: (a) would naval use take priority; (b) what constraints would be placed on the commercial operations; and (c) how would costs be apportioned.(9) What consultations are being undertaken with stakeholders in the Bega Valley Shire and surrounding region.(10) (a) When and where were briefing meetings held; and (b) who was invited.(11) How many people from the local community, other than representatives of specifically invited interests groups, attended the briefings.(12) How has the general public in the region been informed of the proposal.(13) (a) What future briefing meetings are planned; and (b) how will they be advertised.(14) When will the environmental impact statement be advertised, undertaken, published and completed.(15) (a) Is the facility at Twofold Bay the department's preferred option; and (b) what other options are under consideration either for the ammunitioning facility or for importing ordnance and explosives, or both.4797Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The wharf is required to be licensed to 30 tonnes net explosive quantity to provide the capacity for HMAS SUCCESS, the Navy's replenishment ship, to berth and ammunition; however, the predominant number of Navy ships that would use the proposed facility have a licensed magazine capacity less than 12 tonnes. (2) Planning is based on normal usage of approximately 45 days per annum with a surge capacity of 70 days per annum.(3) (a) Preliminary feasibility investigations identified that the most likely location for the wharf in Twofold Bay is in Ben Boyd Bay (the southern arm of Twofold Bay) mid-way Brierley Point and Mungano Point. Two potential sites for the storage facilities were also identified during preliminary investigations. These sites are on State forest land, one off Hut Road and the other off Saltwater Creek Road. The optimum locations for the wharf and for the storage facility will be determined during the detailed technical investigations, including environmental assessment. These investigations are currently under way and will lead to the development of a detailed proposal planned to be referred to Parliament towards the end of 1999.(b) A layout drawing of Twofold Bay with the indicative wharf and storage facility sites marked has been forwarded separately to your office.(4) Preliminary seismic investigations indicate that some dredging may be required. Detailed investigations currently under way will confirm requirements.(a) A dredged channel is not proposed; however, dredging of a turning basin of approximately 250 by 200 metres in the area adjacent to the wharf may be required.(b)10.5 metres.(c) Dredging of approximately 0.5 to 1.0 metre over the turning basin, indicates there will be between 25, 000 and 50, 000 cubic metres of spoil.(5) Yes. Ammunition would be transported to the proposed Navy Ammunition Facility by land.(a) Defence explosive ordnance storage depots at Orchard Hills and/or Myambat.(b) Preliminary planning is on a monthly basis.(c) No decision has been made; preliminary route surveys indicate that both Princes Highway and Hume/Monaro Highways then onto Edrom Road are suitable.(6) The green, yellow and purple safeguarding lines are planning guidelines designed to ensure the long term viability of Defence infrastructure without compromising public safety. These planning guidelines have been applied during the concept design phase of the proposed wharf and land based storage facility at Twofold Bay.Wharf: Location of the wharf such that the green line extends only over water means that, during transfer of ammunition at the wharf, the only incompatible activity is manned vessels anchoring within the green arc (transiting vessels are acceptable). Only personnel involved in the process would be permitted on the wharf when ammunition transfers were in progress. There are no known current or planned incompatible activities within the wharf yellow and purple lines.Storage Facility: Location of the storage facility within the state forest in areas not planned for future development would allow Defence to control (by lease or ownership) access and development out to the purple line. The main restriction would be within the green line, Defence would need to fence off land within the green line and no public access would be permitted within this area.(7) The 30 tonne licence is sufficient for Navy's planned requirements without the need to raise a public risk waiver.(8) The wharf would be available for commercial use when not required by Navy. If approved by Parliament, Defence's concept of operations for the wharf does not require Defence management of the facility providing that the management arrangements that are put in place with a commercial operator/port authority ensure Navy's operational priorities are met.(a) Under such arrangements, Navy use would take priority within a forward planning framework that equitably provides for commercial users.(b) Defence would not impose any specific constraints on commercial operations.(c) Cost of construction of a wharf to meet Navy requirements will be fully funded from Defence appropriations; costs associated with infrastructure not required by Defence are the responsibility of commercial interests/State government. Port charges and wharf usage charges would be a matter to be addressed in the management agreement with the commercial operator/port authority, it is presumed that competitive rates would apply.(9) I refer the honourable senator to Senator Newman's answer to Question Without Notice of 9 March 1999 regarding Naval Ammunition Facility: Twofold Bay, New South Wales, published in the Senate Hansard of 11 March 1999.(10) (a) The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) held a public hearing on 27 April 1998. Community consultation and public briefings were held on 17, 18 August 1998 and on 18, 19 February 1999. Community consultations were held with Bega Shire Council (August 1998 only) at shire chambers, Eden Aboriginal Land Council (both occasions) at its premises, and Harris Daishowa Australia (both occasions) at its premises. Public briefing sessions were held at the Eden Fisherman's Club on both occasions. Additionally, the then Minister for Defence, the Hon Ian MacLachlan AO, attended a public meeting on 16 September 1998 at the Eden Fisherman's Club. (b)The PWC hearing was a public hearing with open invitation. The public briefings were also by open invitations.(11) A open invitation was extended to the community. Information on attendees was not recorded; however, it is estimated that approximately 80 people attended the PWC hearing in April 1998, approximately 30 people attended the August 1998 and February 1999 briefings, and approximately 20 people attended the meeting in September 1998.(12) The general public has been informed of the proposal through the PWC public hearing and the public briefings. There has also been considerable media coverage of the proposal: the local newspaper has given considerable coverage to the proposal and has run reports before and after the PWC hearing and the two public briefings; ABC radio also ran a number of interviews regarding the proposal. The proposal received considerable media coverage during the State election campaign.(13) (a) Future public briefings would be held during the detailed development of the proposal.(b) Meetings will be arranged in conjunction with the Bega Valley Shire Council and any proposed public meetings will be advised through the local press in advance of the meeting. Additionally, should the proposal proceed to the approval stage, the PWC will presumably conduct another public hearing.(14) The assessment regime required for this proposal is not yet determined. Defence submitted a Notice of Intention to Environment Australia on 23 March 1999 in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and expects that the Minister for the Environment will determine the environmental assessment regime required during April 1999. Advertising, conduct, publishing and completion will be in accordance with the provisions of the EP(IP) Act 1974.(15) (a) Yes.(b) No other options are currently under consideration for the proposed Navy Ammunitioning Facility. The importing function will not be through the proposed Navy Ammunitioning Facility at Twofold Bay. Options for the importing function are currently being market tested under the Commercial Support Program and a decision on the commercial operator is not expected until 2000.4798(Question No. 608)6084798Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:With reference to the approach to the Minister by the Local Government Association of Tasmania requesting a single phone book for Tasmania: Does the Government agree with the single phone book proposition; if so, what action will it take to effect this aim; if not, why not.4799Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Government has no view on the single phone book proposition for Tasmania. Licence conditions applying to Telstra require it to continue to produce the White Pages directory and distribute it free of charge. However, there is nothing to prevent the Local Government Association or any other person from producing an alternative telephone directory.Telstra has advised that it considers a single phone book would provide little benefit to Tasmanians because calling patterns in Tasmania are concentrated within the existing geographic areas covered by the current directories. Telstra has also suggested users prefer a local directory and that this also suits advertisers.I am advised that the licence conditions which require Telstra to produce and distribute the directory "on substantially the same basis as in 1997", may not permit the production of a single phone directory in Tasmania. I would be happy to discuss with the Tasmanian Senators whether this licence condition should be amended to allow Telstra to provide a single directory, but any decision to change to a single directory would remain a commercial matter for Telstra.4799(Question No. 613)6134799Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:(1) Has the Minister, his office, his Parliamentary Secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary's office, or any senior executive service level officer in his department or any agency in his portfolio, been approached by either Mr Mark Textor, or any person representing Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd regarding to the proposal by Pangea Resources Pty Ltd/British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Pangea/BNFL) to store nuclear waste in Australia; if so, what are the circumstances of the approach.(2) In any direct approach from Pangea/BNFL, or anyone acting on behalf of Pangea/BNFL, regarding this matter has any research or polling material undertaken by Mr Textor, or Australasian Research Strategies, been provided to the Minister, his office, his Parliamentary Secretary, the Parlia mentary Secretary's office, or any senior executive service level officer in his department or any agency in his portfolio; if so (a) what was the nature of the research; and (b) what was the conclusion drawn from the research.4799Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Neither I nor my Office have been approached. The Parliamentary Secretary has advised that neither he nor his Office have been approached. My Department has advised that no relevant SES level officer in the Department or, as far as it is aware, any agency in the portfolio, can recollect being approached.(2) Neither I nor my Office have been provided with such material. The Parliamentary Secretary has advised that neither he nor his Office have been provided with such material. My Department has advised that no relevant SES level officer in the Department or, as far as it is aware, any agency in the portfolio has been provided with such material.4799(Question No. 616)6164799Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:"With reference to recent Additional Estimates hearings of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee:(1) Two questions were placed on notice regarding Ambassador Peacock's purchase of an airline ticket on 5 June 1998, at a cost of US$601. The department was asked who the ticket was for, and what the rationale was for purchasing it. In response the department stated that: `This expenditure was found to be outside the guidelines and has been repaid'. Given that this response not only failed to answer both the questions and answered a question that was not asked: (a) who was the ticket purchased for; (b) who authorised the ticket to be purchased; (c) what was the rationale for purchasing the ticket; (d) was the ticket purchased associated with embassy business or for private purposes; (e) in regard to (d), if for business, what was the nature of this business; (f) in regard to the repayment of the cost of the ticket, who made the repayment; (g) in regard to (f): (i) who requested that the repayment be made and (ii) why did that person request that the repayment be made; (h) (i) when did the Government first become aware of the repayment and (ii) who was made aware; (i) did the Minister seek any explanation for the repayment; if not, why not; and (j) what audit procedure exists to ensure that embassy expenditure is legitimate and not for private purposes. (2) Various questions were placed on notice regarding Ambassador Peacock's membership of both the Washington City Club and the Maryland Jockey Club. The department was asked whether its decision to pay membership of both clubs fell within the guidelines set out in Administrative Circular 181/94. The department responded that membership of both clubs was `seen, in this case, as being reasonable'. Given that this did not address the question asked: (a) was the department's decision to pay membership of both clubs within the guidelines set out in Administrative Circular 181/94; and (b) in arriving at its decision that the membership of both clubs was `reasonable', what authority or guidelines did the department rely on.(3) A question was placed on notice regarding Ambassador Spender's purchase of a `special dress shirt', and whether this contravened Administrative Circular 181/94, which states that "Morning dress tails and evening dress' are not admissible expenditure items. The department's response stated, in part, that: `The "evening dress" referred to in Administrative Circular 181/94, in fact refers to women's clothing; it does not preclude men's formal wear (other than dress tails) and would not preclude the purchase of a dress shirt.'; how does the Minister reconcile this statement with the Macquarie dictionary's definition of `evening dress' as `formal dress clothes'.4800Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following response in answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) As advised in the Department's answers to Questions on Notice in Senate Estimates, it is not considered appropriate to release the names of private individuals; (b) The Australian Embassy Washington authorised the purchase of the ticket; (c) To be Guest of Honour at a luncheon at the Ambassador's residence for members of the Washington Press Corps; to co-host a dinner for guests at the residence, including a member of the Clinton Cabinet, a Chief White House correspondent and other prominent Americans; and to attend a major representational function at which the Ambassador was present; (d) Embassy business; (e) A function which raised funds for charitable causes; (f) Ambassador Peacock made the repayment; (g) (i) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; (ii) Because an examination of representation acquittals for Washington showed it to be an inappropriate claim; (h)(i) In the second week of February, 1999; (ii) Relevant officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; (i) The Minister was made aware of the repayment and was satisfied with the Department's decision on the matter; (j) All representation acquittals are subject to desk audit in Canberra during which process any items thought to be outside the guidelines are queried.(2) (a) Yes; (b) While there is some specificity in Administrative Circular 181/94, there is further discretion in the guidelines set out in the last paragraph. Officers are able to make a case for claiming items which may not be specifically listed or which may be at variance with those listed. In the context of this provision, the Department considers it was reasonable to approve both memberships.(3) Notwithstanding any dictionary definition of `evening dress', the Department's Overseas Conditions of Service Section, which drafted the guidelines, had interpreted this term in the way explained in the original response to the question. It had been accepted practice by posts, and the Department had agreed with this interpretation, that purchase of a certain amount of clothing for heads of mission was acceptable. It is accepted that there was a degree of ambiguity in the guidelines at the time, and for that reason they were amended in September 1998 at which time all provision for clothing was deleted.4800(Question No. 623)6234800Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 405 (Senate Hansard, 23 March 1999, p.2845), in which it was stated that, `The Victorian legislation underpinning the observance of sustained yield was central to the Commonwealth's accreditation of Victoria's systems and processes as providing for ecologically sustainable forest management (ESFM)' and that, `the Commonwealth and Victoria agree that Victorian systems and processes, including its legislation, policies, Codes, plans and management practices, provide for the sustainable management of forests':(1) On what basis did the Commonwealth: (a) accredit Victoria's ESFM systems and processes as `satisfactory' when the Prime Minister has no information on the actual levels of sawlog removals compared with the legislated levels; and (b) consider illegal reclassification of sawlogs to be the responsibility of the Victorian Government.(2) In accrediting Victoria's ESFM systems and processes, did the Commonwealth: (a) review the legislated levels of `sustainable' yield to ensure that they were in fact sustainable; (b) audit the actual level of logging to ensure that it was within the legislated sustainable yield; and (c) audit log classification procedures to ensure that downgrading from sawlogs to residual logs was not occurring. (3) Does the Prime Minister agree that evidence provided to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998, in particular by the Otways Region Environment Network, shows that: (a) in several forest management areas in Victoria logging is occurring at levels well above those consistent with legislated maximum sustainable yields; and (b) reclassification of sawlogs as residual logs is clearly occurring in several forest management areas in Victoria.4801Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:(1a) and (2a) An expert panel's assessment of the Victorian forest management systems and processes for East Gippsland (Independent Advisory Group Report on Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management, System and Processes ) was used by Commonwealth and Victorian officials as the basis for a Statewide assessment of ESFM (Victorian Statewide Assessment of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management ). This statewide assessment was reviewed and endorsed by an independent expert on forest management.(1b) The administration of the classification of sawlogs is a matter for the Victorian government.(2b, c) The auditing of timber harvesting operations and log grading procedures is a component of the Victorian forest management system.(3) The issues raised in the Committee's inquiry will be forwarded to the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment for advice.4801(Question No. 629)6294801O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CheeEU4QLDNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:With reference to the visit of the then Danish Minister for Agriculture, Mr Tornaes, to Australia in April 1992:(1) What were the names of the government officials and private sector members of the delegation accompanying Mr Tornaes.(2) What was: (a) the position of each government official; and (b) the company and position of each private sector member of the delegation.(3) (a) What meetings, other than the Australian Government ministers, did the Danish Minister or members of his delegation have with government officials; (b) who attended these meetings; and (c) what matters were discussed. (4) Did the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, or the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy, assist in arranging meetings with private sector organisations; if so: (a) who did they meet; and (b) which members of the delegation attended these meetings.4801Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:According to Departmental files(1) and (2)Mr Nils Bernstein—Permanent Under-Secretary of the State; Mr Poul Ottosen—Under Secretary; Mr Ulrik Tornoe—Head of Section; Ms Birthe Schubart—Private Secretary to the Minister; Mr Niels Busk—Farmer, Vice-Chairman—Joint Council for the Meat Trade; Mr H R Thomsen—Manager, Joint Council for the Meat Trade; Mr Bent Maribo—Chairman of the Cooperative Bacon Factory of Steff-Houlberg; Mr Rene Madelaire—Danpork; Mr Laurits Raun—Danish Dairies Association; Mr Klaus Bustrup—Agricultural Council of Denmark.(3) According to copies of the Danish Minister's program held on departmental files, there were no separate meetings with Commonwealth officials.(4) Officials from Multilateral Branch of the then Department of Primary Industries and Energy assisted in coordinating some aspects of the Danish Minister's program.(a) According to the Minister's program held on a departmental file, the delegation was scheduled to meeting with President, Pork Council of Australia; Chairman, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation; Dr Peter White, Food Institute of Queensland; Mr Ross Ciaravolo, Manager, Ausdairy.(b) No information is held on which members of the delegation attended these meetings.4801(Question No. 634)6344801West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:(1) How much did the department pay for the quarter page advertisements, titled `Does Your Small Town Need Services?' placed in the newsletter of Mr Gary Nairn, which was distributed in the Cooma-Monaro Express and the Bega District News in the editions of 23 March 1999.(2) To whom was the money paid. 4802Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The Department paid nothing for the quarter-page advertisements titled `Does Your Small Town Need Services?' placed in the newsletter of Mr Gary Nairn.The Department did, however pay for the advertisement to appear in each of these publications-proper as part of a comprehensive placement in regional newspapers across Australia.4802(Question No. 648)6484802Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) Will the Government oppose the allocation of carbon credits, under the clean development mechanism of the Climate Change Convention, for the following technologies: (a) nuclear energy, including construction of associated infrastructure; (b) coal seam methane or any other by-product of the coal industry; and (c) any fossil fuel-based technology.(2) In each case what is the rationale for the Government's position.4802Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol makes it clear that the purpose of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention. The Government views the CDM as an important element of the Kyoto Protocol by virtue of its capacity to engage developing countries in responding to climate change.The Government is presently participating in international negotiations aimed at establishing the detailed operational arrangements to apply to the CDM. In approaching these negotiations, the Government is not seeking to oppose any of the three technologies raised in the honourable senator's question.Article 12 stipulates that the certification of emission reductions will be based on real, measurable and long term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change. Should projects involving any of these technologies be developed on this basis,the Government considers that they should qualify for the allocation of emission credits under the CDM. To limit the generation of emission credits that might be derived from energy production sources to renewable energy—which is the upshot of opposing the three technologies raised in the question—would be quite unrealistic and would unnecessarily constrain the technology options available to developing countries in developing their energy sectors. Improving the efficiency with which fossil fuel based energy sources are used, for instance, can have definite climate change benefits and should be recognised as such.The developmental aspirations of developing countries can not be realised by relying solely on currently available renewable energy technology. Even allowing for concerted global action to mitigate the effects of climate change, fossil fuels and nuclear energy will continue to play a major role in the global energy supply for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, there is no justification for excluding these energy sources from consideration under the CDM. Host countries will, of course, through their role in approving projects, be able to exercise discretionary control over which technology options they adopt.4803(Question No. 655)6554803O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 April 1999:(1) Can a copy be provided of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) search and rescue manual that was in force on 1 December 1995.(2) If there was no AMSA manual in force at that time did the authority work from the International Maritime Organisation search and rescue manual; if not: (a) what manual did AMSA work from or what procedures did AMSA follow as at 1 December 1995; and (b) can a copy be provided of that manual or those procedures.4803Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority's search and rescue operations are guided by the principles set out in the National Search and Rescue Manual. A copy of the Manual, which was in force on 1 December 1995 has been provided to the Table Office.