1999-05-243912SENATE512701999-05-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees51275127512710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Abetz replace Senator Knowles on the Community Affairs Legislation Committee from 24 May to 28 May 1999.Business5127512712:31:005127Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to move a motion, notice of which was given for Wednesday, 26 May 1999, to exempt a bill from the cut-off order, and to exempt an additional bill.12:31:005127Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I am opposed to the change in the line-up for debate in the Senate which is inherent in the proposed motion. I am also concerned that the government is wanting to use this form in this place to interpolate two bills, which have not previously been on the Notice Paper for discussion, before at least 27 other bills which are before the Senate. While I am prepared to give leave for this motion to be moved, I seek your advice, Madam President, as to whether I will then be able to speak to the motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes, Senator Brown. Leave is granted, Senator Campbell.12:33:005127Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 7 of standing order 111 not apply to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 and the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement of reasons read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 WINTER SITTINGSTELECOMMUNICATIONS LAWS AMENDMENT (UNIVERSAL SERVICE CAP) BILL 1999PurposeTo cap Telstra's Universal Service Obligation cost claim for 1997/98 at $253.32 million and fix it for 1998/99 and 1999/2000 at $253.32 million plus CPIReasons for urgencyPassage of the legislation in the Winter sittings is essential to head off the likelihood that the universal service levy which other telecommunication carriers will be required to pay to Telstra will be substantially increased from present levels (quite possibly by 100% or more). This could have significant negative effects on industry stability and investment.The Minister gave a public commitment in late 1998 that he would take all necessary steps to ensure that the levy would not exceed $253 million plus CPI. Due to the failure of attempts to achieve voluntary agreement with Telstra, the only way to meet the commitment is to legislate.If the legislation is not passed, the existing arrangements will continue to apply. Under those arrangements, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is expected to finalise the assessment in June 1999 and issue levy bills to the industry shortly afterwards in accordance with its statutory duty. It is therefore vital that the legislation should be passed before the ACA issues those bills.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts)H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The statement relating to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 was previously tabled on 11 May 1999.12:34:005127Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The government here is bringing forward two pieces of legislation which it did not get into gear for debate in this period of sittings—that is, before the end of next month—as a matter of urgency. I notice that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , which is the much discussed legislation about inhibiting pornography on the Internet, is on the Notice Paper for today.We are here seeing the fast-tracking of pieces of legislation which are nowhere near as important as other pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper. Let me draw your attention to some of them, Madam President. Working from the bottom up, we have the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1999 . Donations made to political parties which are addressed in that bill ought to lead to healthy discussion in this place. There is the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 . Apparently that aspect of computer operations is not as important as the inhibition of pornographic material used by online services. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 is legislation which has seen a lot of work but it has been relegated by the fast-tracking of the anti-pornography legislation.The Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 we have seen before. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 are important, but we will now be telling that industry with a fair degree of confidence that this legislation will not be dealt with until after the winter session because the government is highjacking debate by bringing on other pieces of legislation.We must remember, too, that the GST legislation has been put on the backburner while debate takes place with the Australian Democrats. The government sees this as an opportunity to bring on at least one piece of politically expedient legislation.There is superannuation legislation and there is very important legislation to do with the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. That will not be debated in this session of the Senate because the government is rescheduling—fast-tracking—legislation and getting around the very sen sible amendments which were made to the forms of this chamber so that senators not only can get their minds around legislation but can consult widely with the Australian public before we come to the point of debate. That is the whole point of section 111 of the standing orders which Senator Campbell has asked be put in abeyance so that this legislation can be fast-tracked.I would add that there is more to this than time for the public to make submissions to the Senate on such things as the online prohibitions legislation. That does not give the time for proper public input. I see that four hours have been allocated for a bill to do with higher education. Education is apparently not as important as the effort to—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Yes, it's the VSU bill.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Suddenly that bill has dropped out of the government's priority list. I guess that is because the government has read the newspapers and has seen that Senator Colston is not in favour of that legislation.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—We want to do them all.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The honourable National Party senator opposite says that he wants to get up and talk at length on this matter as well, and I will make sure that he gets time after me.There is quarantine amendment legislation. There is the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The government has had this as a priority; it is apparently not as important, however, as the broadcasting online services bill. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 with an attendant repeal and consequential amendment bill is suddenly getting a second-rung treatment.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Stop wasting time.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The members opposite interjecting ought to be very aware that I am exposing the ease with which the government is manipulating the debate order in this place. It is very important. I am saying that, through this manipulation, very important pieces of legislation are not going to be debated until after we resume in August. The government has found itself caught out on this, and I intend to continue to expose it.The Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 is an important part of the legislation which the government has to deal with. I note, however, that when it comes to damaging the environment, the government's legislation with the complex name of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] remains up there as a priority. Why is that? This legislation is also being fast-tracked by the government because the government wants to shed environmental powers built up over the last half-century back to the states, against the interests of the environment.It does not escape my notice that, while we are delayed in our program of debating the GST legislation, which was so important last week, government and Democrat members are at this moment out of the chamber discussing this matter of what to do with the environment. I will tell you what they are debating, not in the chamber but outside, Madam President. This is a massive sell-out of the environment by the Democrats aiding and abetting the Howard government to bring in its GST package with the attendant diesel package.There are people out there who want to see this debate in here, but they are not, and this change of the schedule is part of the reason why they are not. I will tell you why that is, Madam President. It is because people believe that that diesel package is the government's package; it is not, it is the Democrats' package. The Democrats are putting before the government, on schedule, a $1 billion package to foster the consumption of fossil fuels, to worsen the greenhouse gas situation in this country and, to boot, to give a massive injection of funds, a free gift on a silver platter, to the big mining, woodchip and transport corporations. They have the hide to say that they are doing this to aid the poor struggling farmers. The best the farmers will get out of this is a trickle-down, secondary flow-on of the benefit which is going straight to the big transport corporations. And where are they owned? In the cities.While the detail of that is being sorted out, we have Senator Campbell moving this motion to try to get other pieces of legislation debated which are of secondary importance, at least as far as the online bill is concerned, to much more important pieces of legislation that we should be debating.I can tell the chamber that we are going to have a full-on debate when the GST legislation, which has been relegated by this move, comes back into this place. We are going to take the Democrats head-on for what they are doing to the Australian environment through this billion dollar gift to the big corporations to burn diesel fuel. We will be taking the Democrats head-on for what they are doing to the interest of the poorer people in this country, the very people they said that they would shelter from a GST on food but who they have already sold out by putting a GST on all food which has been processed in one form or another.Whereas the Democrats' promise at the election was that food would be free of the GST, the Democrats' delivery puts the GST on a whole range of food which poor Australians—as well as rich Australians, of course—consume, and which every food consumption trend shows they will consume more of in the future. In other words, it is a regressive tax on a basic item not promoted here by the Howard government but introduced by the Democrats before they even got to the table with the Howard government. What a sell-out of the election policy of the party that said that it was going to keep us so-and-sos honest. Having sold out comprehensively on that key promise which they said would make the GST good—they could ameliorate the nasty side of the GST so that Australians would not be damaged by it—here they are leading—DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Madam President, I realise that it is not possible to keep Senator Brown honest so I will not trouble with that, but my point of order is relevance. We are debating a cut-off motion on the online services bill. I am quite happy to listen to Senator Brown demonstrate that he does not know anything about the Democrats' amendments, but I am sure the Australian public would like us to debate some legislation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, you should be relating your remarks to the motion that is before the chair and not ranging too widely beyond that.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes and, as you will have heard, Madam President, that is what I am doing. What I am analysing here is the reasons why we are not debating the schedule as it was last week but are having that completely altered. It is not just the government that is in this process; the Democrats are a fundamental reason. We have gone off the GST package because the interest of the Australian people is being sold out not in this chamber but somewhere else in the anterooms, and we will hear a little more about that down the line. I want to assure Senator Bartlett and his Democrat colleagues that they are only just hearing the start of this. They certainly have not heard the finish of their process towards giving Australia a Democrats' GST which it never voted for. So, with that, I say I object to what the government is doing. It is not getting its priorities right, and I am opposed to this motion coming from the government.12:45:005130Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—While I think that Senator Brown has made some interesting comments about the relationship between the government and the Democrats, and I think they are matters that do need to be canvassed at some length, I do not necessarily think that we have opportunities at this time to do that. The opposition is supporting the government's motion to exempt from the cut-off these various bills, and I trust that that will be a matter discussed closer to the mark.12:46:005130Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish to put on record for the Democrats the fact that we do not support the government's motion that is before us. We will not seek to divide, recognising time constraints and also the fact that the opposition has indicated that they will be supporting the motion. We oppose this motion on two grounds: in relation to the exemption of both the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 and the Telecom munications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 .We will not go into the merits of the telecommunications bill, because that is not appropriate to do at this stage of the debate. We do not support the substance of that bill nor do we believe that there is any urgency in bringing that bill on for debate. I would like to quote the government's statement of reasons for claiming that this bill is urgent. It says:Under those arrangements, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is expected to finalise the assessment in June 1999 and issue levy bills to the industry shortly afterwards in accordance with its statutory duty.We believe that this process should be left to occur—that is, that the ACA should make its decision in relation to the USO cost claim and the government should not be intervening. As I mentioned, we will not divide on that issue. In relation to the online services bill, I think most senators would agree that that matter has been introduced to the chamber, referred to a committee and reported on in undue haste. I have had no statement from government—or certainly statements that have been substantiated—giving any reasons for bringing this bill to the chamber and debating it with such urgency. The only reason I have had from government was a single sentence justification referring only to the need:. . . 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.I have to say that before the committee process the government failed to substantiate this so-called high level of community concern. But, beyond that, we have seen undue haste applied to the introduction of this bill, the referral of this bill, the reporting date of the committee on this bill and now the debate of this bill in the chamber. There is no reason for that urgency. It is an important bill; it is not an urgent bill. And for that reason we oppose it being exempt from the cut-off rule as well.12:49:005130Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I just rise to indicate that Greens (WA) will not be supporting the exemption from the cut-off of the two bills mentioned. At the whips meeting this morning it was mentioned that exemption for the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 would be asked for as well. At that stage I did not know that both of them would be put in the same motion. That makes it perhaps more imperative that we make a statement in relation to that.There are issues in relation to the broadcasting services bill which I believe ought to be taken more carefully, and I will bring that out in my second reading contribution. The reality is that there are other processes that are occurring at the moment in relation to the capping process. And we have other considerations, like whether or not the actual amount relates to what is happening with the desire for other services that people are asking for. I believe that the Australian Communications Authority is going through a process, and here we are jumping the gun before that is assessed. So on that issue alone it would seem to be a strange thing for us to bring on now what can be, in effect, a retrospective action in relation to the universal service cap.In relation to broadcasting services, I think we have made it clear that we do not think it could or should be argued at a time when the government has said it has a very tight program. The government keeps wanting us to sit extra hours, extra days, and, potentially, extra weeks. I would not be in favour of that, considering the way that they are carrying on. Every time they ask us for extra hours we will bring up that they were prepared to take time off their otherwise urgent program to put extra bills into the program. If they turn around and say that they want extra time on the Telstra sale bill, the tax bills or some other bills later on, we will remember that they have taken time and forced this into the program now.The reality is that I certainly will not be in favour of trying to push this through and continuing on at all hours for the next six weeks, because there will not be a great benefit, I believe, for the Australian people if the people in this chamber are not able to catch up with their work, if the people outside in the community are not able to catch up with the electorate program and if the Depart ment of the Senate and all of the committees are not able to catch up with the work that they need to do for the current and ongoing programs to be successful. So I think the government's arguments are not of sufficient merit to indicate that these bills are urgent enough for us to drop all other things, and I indicate that I will also be voting against the motion.12:52:005131Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I rise to support the contribution that has been made by the Manager of Opposition Business, Senator Carr, and indicate to the Senate that the opposition will be supporting this exemption from the cut-off.I am provoked to make a brief contribution to this particular debate because of the nature of the speech made a few moments ago by Senator Stott Despoja, who indicated that the Australian Democrats would not be supporting this particular motion before the chair. I do think that we have to make absolutely clear here that the reason the government is bringing forward this particular motion for exemption from the cut-off at this time is that the Australian Democrats are currently in discussions with the government on the issue of the taxation legislation that literally, until 72 hours ago, was the matter that was proposed for debate in the Senate this afternoon.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The GST.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Yes, Senator Sherry. That is why I assume the Manager of Government Business is bringing forward this particular motion. The opposition generally accepts, as you would know, Madam President, that it is the government's responsibility to organise its own legislative program. Generally, the opposition takes the view—it is not always the case, but usually we take the view—that it is reasonable for the government to put forward its legislative priorities and for the chamber to deal with them unless there are particular circumstances that mean that the opposition might take a view that other priorities are more important at any particular time. But generally it is accepted around the chamber that the government determines its own legislative program. Here we have a situation where GST negotiations are currently going on behind closed doors between Senator Lees—I do not know whether Senator Stott Despoja is involved in them or not—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Now we have got to the bottom of it. No, she is not.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—She is apparently not involved in them, Madam President. But, if you are not involved in them, Senator, get involved. That is my suggestion. What is clear is that behind closed doors Senator Lees and some other Australian Democrats are involved in negotiation with Mr Howard, Mr Costello and others. The point here is that that has meant with the Democrats' support—Government senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am not using the word `connivance'; I am using the word `support'. With the Democrats' support, the government has made a decision to take the tax legislation off the legislative program for the Senate today. Everybody knows that that is what has happened. And then—rather tongue-in-cheek, I think—Senator Stott Despoja, as Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, got up and said, `We don't support this particular government motion for exemption of the cut-off for a couple of bills.' I have got to say that you cannot have it both ways on these sorts of motions. The reason the motion has come forward is the dealing that is going on between the Democrats and the government.Senator Campbell is, of course, in a uniquely strong position to understand this. I think that if Mr Howard and Mr Costello are on the ball they will invite Senator Campbell to be involved in the negotiations because he has got first-hand knowledge of the Democrats—he was a member.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You probably know more about the Australian Democrats than anyone else in the government. If Mr Howard and Mr Costello are on the ball they will involve you—they will use that experience.I do not often say this about Senator Stott Despoja's contributions in the chamber, but it was a little transparent to get up and say, `We're happy for the GST legislation not to be debated, but we're not so happy for these particular bills to come forward and be debated.' You cannot have it both ways in this chamber. Some in the chamber genuinely will not accept that, as it always does, the opposition cooperatively works with the government to ensure that we see progress of government legislation. Some might genuinely argue that the opposition has got it wrong in supporting the exemption of these two important pieces of legislation. But on this occasion I really do believe that on these motions the Australian Democrats stand exposed. The proposition is before the chair because of what is happening outside this chamber. Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Bartlett must know that. Millions and millions of Australians know it. I think the less said by the Australian Democrats on this motion the better.As far as the opposition is concerned, we want to get on with the debate about the important issues that are before the Senate. The government's legislative program is again in tatters, but we will help them out. We will give you the numbers to make sure that we get on with this important piece of legislation. We are happy to debate it now.12:59:005132Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Senator Faulkner says you cannot have it both ways. The government wants to exempt this legislation from the cut-off, to rush it through, and the Labor Party is running around the country saying: `This legislation hasn't had enough community consultation. This legislation has major flaws. This legislation needs more work.' Yet it is thanks to the Labor Party that this legislation is now going to be debated today, well ahead of any decent degree of community consultation.Everybody knows there are lots of flaws with this bill; everybody knows it is not workable. Certainly those people who are affected, those people who understand the area of information technology and are going to be the victims of this bill, know it is flawed. They know it is rushed. The Labor Party are happy to run around the country spouting that message yet when it comes to a specific vote on a matter that counts—trying to ensure that this bill doesn't come on until the problems with it are properly examined— they go to water and support the government and so enable the bill to come on straight away. So it appears that it is more the ALP that is trying to have it both ways on this issue.Somehow or other Senator Faulkner thinks it is a matter of great revelation that the Democrats are discussing tax issues with the government and that is why the tax bills are not on. It is hardly a matter of surprise. It is certainly not something the Democrats would not highlight; it is something we have obviously been quite public about. We have tried to play a constructive role in that debate from day one. From the day the tax proposals were first announced, before the election, we have been keen to try to get a positive outcome for Australia. It is a great shame that the government until last week had chosen not to discuss any of those serious concerns with us. But the fact that they finally are at least gives some opportunity for positive outcomes for Australia to still occur. It is a great shame that did not happen until last week.Obviously under those circumstances the government is not in a position—having only finally got around to looking at the Democrats' concerns—to give a response to those concerns in the parliament. So in that context the tax legislation cannot be brought on. It is something that the Democrats do not walk away from. Indeed, we are quite proud of having been able to ensure that some of the serious problems with the tax package have been put on the community agenda, on the public agenda, and are being properly considered. If it was not for the Democrats insisting on a proper comprehensive committee inquiry into the tax package, then many of these problems would not have come to light. If it was not for the Democrats, then serious issues such as urban air pollution would never have got on the public agenda, whereas now, significantly, the Prime Minister of this country is recognising and acknowledging the importance of not increasing urban air pollution. If it were not for the role of the Democrats, then those sorts of serious issues would not be given the proper prominence they are now given.So whilst we are disappointed that it has taken until now for the government to seriously discuss the Democrats' concerns, it is better late than never. In that context we cannot debate that legislation now. To suggest that that is an excuse to bring on this legislation is farcical, to say the least. For Senator Faulkner to draw that argument is obviously ridiculous. The Notice Paper shows about 25 or 26 other pieces of legislation that have all been in this chamber longer than the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill. All of those have had proper examination and many are of greater importance economically and socially to this country. Clearly, those are the ones the Senate should be discussing—not the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, which the ALP itself publicly states has not been given adequate consideration. So it is drawing a long bow indeed to try to make some connection between tax packages and bringing on this specific legislation.Whilst the public and the broader Senate might not be happy to hear Senator Brown continue on at far greater length than he already has, I am personally quite happy to hear him demonstrate his ignorance in as much length as he wishes to go on with, because it highlights his inadequate understanding of the important issues here and the Democrats' position on them. If it were not for the role of the Democrats in establishing the Senate committee inquiries then these problems, particularly the significant negative environmental impacts, of the government's tax package would not have come to light. I do not know if Senator Brown attended any of the environment committee hearings, and that may be a reason why he is only just coming up to speed with some of the serious problems with the government's tax package that the Democrats have been pointing out for many months. It seems astonishing to me, and an extraordinary situation, that a so-called Green party—presumably meant to be a pro-environment party—is attacking another party, the Democrats, that is trying to achieve a positive environmental outcome.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—He is going to vote against the GST, unlike your lot.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I am not sure what the point of being in the parliament is for a pro-environment party if you are not trying to get positive environmental outcomes through the parliamentary process. But certainly the Democrats are the ones who have got this issue on the agenda. We are highlighting the environmental negatives of the government's tax package and we are trying to achieve a significant positive environmental outcome for Australia. That is what the Democrats are about—achieving a positive environmental outcome. The Democrats, as we have stated publicly and firmly for many months and have continued to state right through to today—and I am happy to state again—certainly will not support anything that does not deliver a significant positive environmental outcome. Why trying to achieve a positive environmental outcome is a problem for the Green party I am not quite sure.Senator Brown said he is going to take the Democrats head-on in relation to that. I am quite happy for that. Perhaps those five demonstrators who turned up outside my office in Brisbane yesterday to picket and who had not worked out that, whilst the Democrats work hard, we usually do not turn up on a Sunday, will take us head-on as well. I am quite happy to be taken head-on in relation to trying to achieve a positive environmental outcome for Australia. That is part of the core business of the Democrats, as we have demonstrated over more than 20 years in this parliament.So we are the ones who are putting this under the microscope. We have put it under the Senate committee microscope. We have put it on the agenda. If we do not get a positive environmental outcome then we certainly will not be proceeding on this issue. Again, we make no secret of and no apology for the fact that the Democrats are having discussions about that issue with the government at the moment. Why we should be attacked for trying to discuss things with the government to convince the government to produce a positive outcome for the environment baffles me. But, anyway, I am sure we will hear more and more about that over the weeks to come.Unfortunately, last week was the first time the coalition actually looked at what the Democrats' amendments and concerns are about. It seemed like they were some of the few people in the country who had little understanding of what the Democrats' amendments are about. But it seems that, with Senator Brown, we have found somebody who knows even less about the detail of the Democrats' amendments than the government. Perhaps in the coming time before the tax legislation comes back on we can offer him a briefing about the details we have worked out in consultation with environment groups and experts in pollution and greenhouse issues. He may then become more aware of the issues that we are trying to get on the public agenda.That is a matter for debate for another time, but certainly at this stage the Democrats believe there is plenty of other legislation we should be debating now that is already on the Notice Paper and that has already been examined. Much of it has already been through Senate committee inquiries. We have seen no justification, not least from the ALP, for why we should be fast-tracking this online services bill. There is no need for it—no urgent social need, no urgent economic need. No reason has been put forward for why this particular legislation should jump the queue. Hopefully, we will not need to listen to any more doublespeak from the ALP about this bill not being given enough community consultation because, obviously, if it was not for their vote, we would have had the opportunity for more consultation on it.13:08:005134Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Today we have heard from the Democrats—the ones that John West rejected, the ones who are not involved at all in the GST negotiations. The only way they can get back in the marketplace is to come into the Senate and object to this. I want to make only one point. What is stunning about this is that it is obvious—and I think it is an obvious move—that a government would withdraw its taxation measures whilst it is in the midst of negotiations. We cannot be overly critical of that.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—You just were.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—You are in the ideal position with your new friends to go and negotiate what to bring on now. Where were your bozos over the last weekend? They were sitting up at Treasury Place negotiating with Mr Costello and Mr Howard. Some of you were staying in hotels around Melbourne hoping to get a tidbit thrown to you, but what were your negotiators doing? They were negotiating about tax. Surely it would have occurred to just one of them, `Well, tax is going to go off next week. What comes on?' There are 25 bills. Surely your negotiators could have suggested to the government, `We wouldn't mind the wool bill or whatever other bill coming on on Monday.'DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—They said they had already stitched up a deal with you lot.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—No, they had not. The first we knew about this proposal was when the Manager of Government Business faxed us the new program, and I must commend him for getting it out as quickly as he could because I think he probably sent it to us within half an hour of decision making. We were told that on Thursday.But what has happened to the great negotiators? All you have to do at the moment, Senator Bartlett, through you, Madam President, is when you say, `Jump', the Liberals will respond, `How high?' You have got them. You are in negotiation. But what do you bozos do? You forget to arrange the program for this week. You ignore it. Talk about the arguments in the paper that the fairies at the bottom of the garden have suddenly become trolls; they are back to fairies at the bottom of the garden again. They overlooked the fact that the Senate is sitting this week. They overlooked the fact that, if they knock this motion off, they go into their favourite debate on the privatisation of Telstra. Is that what you want? That is the effect if you vote against this motion today.On the general view, the Labor Party has rarely enforced the cut-off motion. We never believed in it particularly in government; that is true. Something like 190 cut-off motions have come before this chamber, and we have voted for about 188 of them. We do reserve the right in certain circumstances to knock it off, either on the basis of lack of consultation or, tactically, because we hate the bill. We are honest about it. One or the other reason will be what we put forward to knock off the cut-off motion, but we do not generally agree with it.What we really dislike is the smarmy hypocrisy of the old Australian Democrats coming in and saying, `We're in negotiations with the government. We believe the tax bill should be taken off while those negotiations go on, but we were too damned dopey to think of an alternative proposition to put to the government last Thursday and Friday to sort out this week.' The one thing that we dislike in politics more than the adversarial nature is pure unprofessional dopiness. Guilty on all charges.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5135s2135135Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:13:005135Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—On 19 March this year, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced that the government proposed to legislate to regulate Internet content. The opposition, through the medium of the shadow minister for communications, responded at that time in the following terms and made three key points. Firstly, the opposition supported workable and feasible regulation of Internet content which placed realistic road blocks in the way of children being exposed to content unacceptable by community standards.Secondly, the government's announced proposal was duplicitous because it was not being proposed on its merits but rather to gather support for unrelated government legislation, in particular Telstra privatisation legislation. 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 Internet content is sourced from offshore. Thirdly, the sensible public policy approach to Internet content is to empower parents and schools, particularly by way of information about end use filter devices.On 21 April this year, the government introduced into the Senate the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 with a view to the legislation being dealt with by the Senate before 1 July this year. In the meantime, at the request of Senator Harradine, the government re-established the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies with a view to the current bill being referred to and examined in detail by that committee.The bill was referred and over 20 hours of public hearings were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. During those hearings, the committee received 104 submissions and heard from 33 witnesses in total. Those witnesses were industry associations, government departments, regulatory agencies, private firms, consumer associations and a range of interest groups with particular perspectives in this debate. Those groups included the Australian Library and Information Association, the CSIRO, Young Media Australia, the Eros Foundation, Australia Online, the Internet Industry Association, NOIE, the Electronic Frontiers Australia and the Australian Information Industry Association. The report of the Senate select committee was tabled in this place on Tuesday, 12 May.On the introduction of the bill, the opposition indicated its intent to conduct a detailed examination of the legislation throughout the committee process. That intent was carried out and the opposition tabled a significant minority report addressing the following points: firstly, the opposition's approach to Internet regulation; secondly, the need for sensible measures to limit the access of children to harmful material; thirdly, our disappointment at the duplicitous and disruptive approach adopted by the government to this important legislation; and, fourthly, the failure of the government to squarely address the issue that the bill does not solve the problem that the vast majority of offensive material is hosted offshore and hence escapes any regulation by the bill.A brief description of the legislation is appropriate at this stage. The legislation seeks to regulate content on the Internet through amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act. The legislation introduces a content rating regime for the Internet analogous to that in existence for broadcast and narrowcast technology and it requires the industry to develop an industry code of conduct to address the issue. 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 2000.The legislation effects a process by which the ABA, on complaint about material, can require Internet service providers to take down X or refused classification rated material hosted onshore and to take all reasonable steps to prevent access to X or refused classification rated material hosted offshore. In respect of R classified onshore content, the ABA must be satisfied that restricted access arrangements, for example, PIN, password or age verifications, are in place. 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 expressly does not apply to live Internet content such as news groups, chat channels or email.Initial industry reaction to the legislation can be described as hostile. Major criticisms by industry have included the following: that content regulation is inappropriate for the Internet medium and that, as a matter of principle, there should be no restrictions at all on Internet content; that proposals in respect of offshore content regulation are unworkable; that the proposals would place an onerous economic burden on Internet service providers; and that the proposals would reduce or destroy Australia's attractiveness as an Internet e-commerce jurisdiction.Following the introduction of the bill and examination of the explanatory memorandum, the opposition identified eight key matters to serve as a framework for ongoing analysis of the bill. The first matter is the duplicity of the government's approach in two key respects: firstly, the linkage to the Telstra legislation; secondly, in respect of the government's public presentation, that the legislation—the bill itself—would, without more, solve the problem. This was, and clearly is, incorrect. For the government to have made this a major policy proposal and to continue to spread disinformation that the bill, if passed substantially in its current form, will solve the problem of children and others gaining access to material that is generally regarded by the community as being offensive or undesirable is a bold-faced lie—a lie that should not be allowed to remain unchallenged in this chamber.The bill does not solve the problem of offensive material coming from offshore because 90 per cent of that material does come from offshore and this bill does not apply to it. The second key matter that we have adopted is that, in principle, the notion of Internet content regulation would be agreed, but only that which is technically feasible and not so onerous as to reduce the attractiveness of Australia as an Internet industry, e-commerce jurisdiction.The third principle is the viability and effectiveness of Internet service provider filter arrangements. The fourth principle is the lack of viability of offshore content regulation and the fifth is to support an industry based and industry agreed code of practice as a regulatory vehicle in conjunction with the legislation. The sixth point is to note, for the moment, the government's application of the narrowcasting/broadcasting classification regime for the purposes of the current bill, knowing that decisions might have to be revisited in the future as technology and Internet use develops and spreads. The seventh key point is that an effective and realistic content regulation solution requires the education and improvement of end users, particularly by way of end use filter devices. The eighth and final principle that we have adopted is the need for active government pursuit of international activity and international agreements to address the issue of Internet content coming from offshore into this country.Industry reaction to the detail of the legislation during the select committee hearings was critical of the short time periods for effective consultation and hostile to much of the ineffective content in the bill. Particular detailed criticisms made at public hearings and via written submissions included that the 24-hour take-down period for offshore content was far too short; the penalty regime of 50 penalty units per day per continuing breach was simply too punitive; and the legislation did not expressly specify what `all reasonable steps' were required to be taken in respect of offshore content.The opposition will move a second reading amendment addressing our concerns and reservations. The first of these is that 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 consideration of the content of the bill. The second is the duplicity of the government in its presentation to the general public of the effectiveness of its regime to control offshore content—in particular, that the bill deliberately tricks mums and dads. The third is the unworkability of the proposals and the ease with which they can be bypassed. The fourth is to note, but not to unthinkingly accept, the broadcasting or narrowcasting classification regime in respect of the Internet medium, together with an acknowledgment that this may well have to be revisited in the future, particularly in light of whatever changes convergence of technology might bring. Our fifth concern is the need for the Commonwealth to pursue international arrangements in respect of Internet content regulations. The final point we will address in that second reading amendment is that the real solution to the mischief at hand is end use empowerment, which requires an extensive education and information campaign for parents, guardians and schools in respect of the use of the Internet and end use filter devices.The opposition will move a series of amendments in the committee stage. The first is that the 24-hour take-down period be extended to 48 hours and apply only after a process of real and effective notification of the relevant breach. The second is that the focus of the proposed penalty regime be directed towards deliberate and informed breaches of the act, that is, those breaches that are taken with full knowledge of the act. The third is that `all reasonable steps' be expressly defined to include end use empowerment, information provision and advice on culturally appropriate end use filter devices, and that such reasonable steps generally be technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective. The fourth is for the ABA to take into account the public interest in not requiring unreasonable steps that would reduce national Internet capacity. The fifth is that the ABA take into account the public interest in ensuring that Australia remains an attractive Internet e-commerce investment jurisdiction by not requiring measures that would unreasonably degrade Internet capacity or utility. The final amendment to be moved by the opposition is that, after an appropriate period of the operation of the legislation, a review of the legislation be allowed, which is itself to be subject to a three-year sunset clause.So the position of the opposition has been clear from the outset. We do not believe that the government has been sufficiently honest in its approach to this bill. I cannot recall when such an important bill has been the subject of such ongoing and continuing haste. The Internet as a medium introduces new and novel forms of communication. It opens the whole world and copious amounts of information to any person in Australia who can operate a computer. Businesses, consumers, parents and guardians are all caught up in its operation. Real issues of equity have not been considered, let alone discussed or debated, and will not be discussed or debated as we go through the committee stages of this bill.Many persons in Australia—many parents—are still uncomfortable with the use of technology and the immediate spread of technology into their homes. My own two daughters, aged eight and 11, have regular training and instruction at their schools on computers, IT and the Internet. My children—as do nearly all children—love the ease with which they can gain access to information. Even local libraries now provide relatively easy access to the Internet.Many parents, though, are uncomfortable with some of these developments. They may not be as computer literate as they would like to be. They are often not aware of the range of material that is readily accessible. They have not had the opportunity to be trained or become familiar with the use of the Internet and associated technology.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—How are you going to fix that?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Equity issues are still ignored by this bill. A decent computer and printer still costs in the order of $2,000. For parents with children who spend all of their income on the basics of life, access to the Internet, even if desired, is still often cost prohibitive. A glaring omission of this bill is the lack of resource allocation for parent empowerment and community awareness.Nearly every witness to the Senate IT committee proceedings impressed upon the committee the urgent need for parental education and community awareness. The explanatory memorandum identifies that the government has allocated only $1.9 million for the framework administration of this bill. Of that $1.9 million, nearly three-quarters, or $1.5 million per annum, will be allocated for classifications by the classification board. Only $500,000 is allocated for community awareness and industry liaison. That figure of half a million dollars can be contrasted to the allocation of nearly $20 million to sell the government's new tax package prior to the last election. Significant upgrading of that figure of half a million dollars for industry liaison, parent empowerment and community awareness would have the capacity to greatly assist Australian parents and those bodies which carry out de facto supervisory role of children. Despite being pressed in the committee stages, the government refuses to increase that amount or outline the detail of any plans or programs it might have to carry out important community awareness raising.The opposition does not suggest this needs to be done for all time. A significant upgrading of resource allocation for a defined period of time will probably do the trick. The opposition urges the government to reconsider this aspect of funding because it has the capacity to immediately and greatly assist Australian families and Australian parents.Madam Acting Deputy President, I take advice whether it is adequate to move the second reading amendment that has been circulated. I so move:At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate expresses its concern that:(a) the legislation is being dealt with in indecent haste and with inadequate consideration;(b) the Government's claim that the legislation will `solve the problem' of unacceptable content is not supported by the reality that the vast bulk of internet content is generated outside Australia;(c) the proposals, including the idea of mandatory internet service provider filters, are unworkable and easily by-passed;(d) the application of the narrowcasting classification regime to the regulation of internet content has not been thoroughly analysed and may well require revisiting in the future, in view of rapidly changing and converging technology;(e) efforts should be made by the Government to pursue international agreements on the regulation of internet content;(f) substantially more emphasis should be placed on end-user empowerment through information and education campaigns for parents, schools and guardians about the use of the internet and of end-user filter devices; and(g) the legislation does not include a sunset clause, or provision for review, given the speed of technological change in this area".Finally, I should advise that the opposition has tabled a series of amendments and authorises circulation of those amendments in the chamber.13:33:005139Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I too wish to speak on this matter, a matter with which I have had some ongoing involvement since 1993 when one of the Senate committees first had a look at this issue. It was there that we saw the tremen dous possibilities of the Internet as the main driver of the e-commerce revolution that is now sweeping the country and developing a whole new information economy which will place Australia very well in economic development into the next century.Like all new industries that suddenly come upon society, we have to have a look at this industry's impact. Over time, governments respond to regulate industries in various ways. All industries, whether they like it or not, are subject to some type of government regulation. Most industries prefer not to be regulated—obviously it is time consuming and there are costs of compliance. But it is necessary for industries to be regulated if the laws of the land are to be upheld. This industry has many legal aspects which we need to address.I would ask those opposite, with particular reference to Senator Bishop in his last speech, how he really intends to address the key issue here, which is: what do we do about illegal material on the Internet which, if it were shown on any other medium—whether it be print, film, video or TV—would be considered illegal activity?3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—The Crimes Act.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Ah, the senator says, `The Crimes Act.' Excellent. We do have laws and those laws are used to enforce various measures and can perhaps do that very well in terms of some of the media we referred to. I will ask Senator Stott Despoja to tell us how the Crimes Act can be effectively applied in this particular instance. I do not think Constable Plod on his bicycle is going to catch up with the very fast moving Internet.Senator Schacht interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator, you have raised the absolute essential point—that the current laws and the way in which they are applied to traditional media are very difficult to apply to this medium. That is why we have to come up with a range of new measures. Let us have a look at what some of this illegal material is that we have to deal with.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Why don't you give us a graphic description and grab a headline or two? O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I cannot quite hear what Senator Lundy is interjecting, but she is probably trying to trivialise this and say, `It is just porn.' It is a lot more than that. Certainly we have problems with things like racial vilification, and I commend SBS television's Insight program last week for putting a major focus on racial vilification as a problem on the Net. There is also extreme violence on the Net. You can get a homemade recipe for making a bomb on the Net. Paedophile rings use the Net for entrapment.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You are such a sensationalist, Senator Tierney. This is not what this legislation is about.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I know this is embarrassing, Senator Lundy, but these things exist on the Net at the moment, and they are illegal and the government has a duty to do something about this illegal material. If it were shown in any other medium it would be refused classification.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! It would assist the debate if Senator Tierney could proceed.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I realise this is embarrassing to the opposition, because they have no answer as to how you are going to enforce illegal material that currently exists on the Net.No law that we try to enforce in this country is necessarily 100 per cent enforced. That does not mean we do not try. If something like breaking and entering is illegal, we try to enforce that. We do not succeed 100 per cent, but at least we try. I listened carefully to Senator Bishop's speech and I did not hear anything in it that would indicate any sort of enforcement provision against illegal material. It is a difficult and a changing medium in which to bring about any sort of enforcement. The Internet is expanding each year at 100 per cent at the moment—in other words, it is doubling its size each year. Its size is going up exponentially. The technology is changing rapidly. 7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—It is a global medium. What makes you think you can control regulation?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Indeed, CSIRO evidence was very interesting and instructive in this regard. What the CSIRO wrote in a report was contradicted by their later verbal evidence to the committee, because within the six months the technology had changed again.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—That is the biggest backflip I have ever heard.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—No, it isn't, Senator. If you look back at the evidence we first received in 1993 before a Senate committee on this matter, also in 1995, in 1997 and in 1999, on all of those occasions there was evidence given by the industry saying, `Oh no, you can't do anything about this. It is technically impossible to do anything about this.'7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—A bit of fast repositioning there by Senator Alston to save a bit of face.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lundy, I understand that there are differing views on the subject under discussion but it would assist the debate if Senator Tierney could finish his speech.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Senator Lundy, you have 20 minutes later on. Could you just retain your babble for a moment. It is not having any effect on anything. We cannot hear what you are saying. You are being very disruptive and you will have 20 minutes a bit later on. I listened in silence—almost. I made one interjection on Senator Bishop but that was it. I was not agreeing with him but I am taking this opportunity now to respond to the points he raised.As I was saying, we have looked at this matter at a number of hearings, and the technology has changed very rapidly over that time. What was not possible in 1993 is possible now. Things will change, particularly with filtering technologies, to become more sophisticated and more possible in future years. That is why the bill has two provisions at its centre. It is a very flexible bill, an organic bill, which will change with the nature of the industry. People do not have to take down material—I am talking about the Internet service providers here—if it is not technically feasible and if it is not commercially viable. They have a let-out clause which says, `If you cannot do it, we are not going to force you to do it. But if the technology becomes available and you are aware of these problems, then you do have to do it.' What is more reasonable than that? That is the key provision in the bill, and it fills the gap that is left by the alternatives that are proposed by the opposition and the industry.What does the industry want to do with this? The industry is happy to develop an industry code of practice—and they should. That is a very important strategy. They should have standards, and they will have those ready by the end of the year. That is to be commended and is supported by this legislation. But they say that the answer is at the switch; the answer is at the other end. They say the answer is in the home and all you need to do is train and educate children properly in this, educate parents properly and use effective filtering technology at that end—such as NannyNet or SurfNet—and that will fix the problem. Well, maybe that is the case if you have a technically savvy household—and I live in one of those; my children are experts in this sort of technology. But there is not a high percentage of those in this country and there is not a high percentage of parents who are ahead of the kids on this matter. As a matter of fact, in the various age groups they find there is a big difference between the 25-plus, the 15 to 25s and the group under 15 years of age in terms of their familiarity with this material and how savvy they are. Therefore, end user control is only a partial solution. It should be encouraged. Money should be spent educating children and parents and there should be the technology for filtering, but it is nowhere near the total answer and people who say that are kidding themselves. As Senator Bishop mentioned, there are also international agreements. They are to be encouraged too. But, again, when you find islands in the Pacific heading up to make a lot of their foreign exchange out of this Internet illegal material, you wonder whether international agreements are going to be all that effective.What we do need is a whole range of approaches. We need the industry to be more responsible in terms of its codes of practice. We need parents to be more responsible in terms of education and using screening technologies. We need more international agreements. But we also need the industry to be more responsible. It is not the Wild West; it is a very important medium. It will drive e-commerce. But governments have a responsibility to enforce the laws that exist in society on this medium as well as every other medium.13:43:005141Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Tierney has said that there ought to be a system whereby the law is enforced—and nobody can deny that. He has suggested, I think, that parents should be able to see what their children are looking at, particularly young children, and to help them as they will. I do not think this is really a debate about censorship in that sense; it is a debate about what control people should have over their children. It is a debate too about how we use the Internet. People more learned than I will be talking about that later on in this debate. As Senator Bishop quite clearly demonstrated, this is a debate about process, as is many a debate in this chamber.As Senator Bishop has said, the real concern the opposition has about this legislation is the process that is to be used. As you look at the legislation, it appears more and more that this is legislation brought forward not so much to satisfy the need that it proposes in its terms to meet, but rather, as Senator Bishop has said, to satisfy other needs. That is a bad way of going around making legislation. To put forward legislation to meet a particular problem when it is not the problem that you have primarily in mind but other matters is a bad way to legislate. Senator Tierney has talked about the horrible material that is put over the Internet. No doubt that is there and must be met. The police at the present time are already surveilling the Internet and seeing what can be done about it.I will give an example of what I mean by saying that this is an issue of process and that the legislation falls down in meeting that. I refer to section 27 of schedule 1 of the bill, which talks about protection from civil proceedings. It reads:Civil proceedings do not lie against a person in respect of loss, damage or injury of any kind suffered by another person because of any of the following acts done in good faith:(a) the making of a complaint under division 1;(b) the making of a statement to, or the giving of a document or information to, the ABA—that is, the Australian Broadcasting Authority—in connection with an investigation under this Division.What that proposes is simply this: that anybody can make a complaint about a matter that he or she notes on the screen, and then a process is put into operation. It does not matter whether that is a vexatious complaint or a far-fetched complaint or what have you. Anybody that is damaged by that is unable to sue for what he or she may suffer as a result of being reported to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, no matter how slender the material on which the complaint is based. If this legislation was confident that it was fulfilling a real need in a proper way, I would not have thought you would need a particular section which protects people from being sued by people who suffer unjustly by the complaints that are made. It is very easy to make a complaint but oftentimes very hard to answer it.Just as people who run a program on the Internet have a responsibility, so do those who make complaints about it and who may cause a lot of cost, a lot of anxiety and a lot of trouble to people who are going about their legitimate business and ultimately are found to have been going about their legitimate business. I see from reading the legislation that what happens is that people make a complaint and the ABA must investigate it. True enough, it can decline to investigate the complaint if it thinks it is frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith or if the ABA has reason to believe that the complaint was made for the purpose or for purposes that include frustrating or undermining the effective administration of schedule 1.The ABA does have a range of powers which enable it to go about its task in a responsible way. But why is that responsibility not brought in at the first stage of the process, that is, at the complaint stage? This is an invitation for people to make all sorts of complaints, which the legislation itself recognises may be frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith. If somebody is faced with that sort of accusation and the ABA comes to investigate, that is a real problem for that person and it cultivates a culture of informing, unless it is very carefully watched.As has been said by the two speakers so far and as will no doubt be said by the speakers after me, no-one wants to encourage the sort of material that has been described as coming over the Internet and everybody wants to equip families with the ability to stop that coming through. But there is another side of that which must always be remembered, that is, we do not want to create a regime where there is oppression by a group of people who go around informing on others on a basis that is not justified. This legislation, as I look at it, is inclined to do that. It is legislation that can be better brought into line by simply making those who make complaints bear more responsibility than this legislation presently does.If you go on further into the act, clause 37 of schedule 1 of the act talks about the obligation of the ABA to notify an Australian police force—not the Federal Police, but any Australian police force—if it considers that it is sufficiently serious to warrant referral to that force. Again, there is a whole system of informing to get at a vice that could be better got at by other means.It does seem as if the problems we are going through are not going to be answered in any event by the process that we are going to put into place pursuant to this legislation. The actual process of trying to stop this material coming onto the Internet is going to be very difficult. If, as I do, you believe those who say legislation as broad as this allows a range of complaints to come in such an undisciplined way, that is going to impact on the very lifeblood of the Internet system. There is so much good material that we want to come across on the Internet. What we have to watch in the present debate is that, in trying to put down a particular vice, we do not let loose all sorts of other problems that will not be cured unless we rescind this legislation, if it is put through, and go back and try to do what we are trying to do in a better way.Senator Tierney has talked about a range of ways to answer these problems. He has talked about family life, and that is perhaps central to the way we ought to try to cure this problem. The problem that a lot of people in families these days have to tolerate, where both parents in the family have to work all sorts of hours just to make a reasonable living, itself impacts upon the ability of families to see what their children are doing. To resort to this legislation without at the same time trying to do something about the way the labour market is now conducted seems to me to be quite an outrage. In other words, we as legislators come up with this sort of legislation, which has all sorts of problems with it, and at the same time run a labour market which compels parents to be out at all times so that they are unable to devote the time and attention to their children that they should be able to.I think both mother and father can work. I am not suggesting for one minute that they should not, but they should not have to work the long and intense hours that they do under the present system. When the second tier of workplace legislation comes past this chamber, we will be talking about how, more and more, the work force has been driven to contractual arrangements for people to earn a fairly sparse living in terms of normal hours. In other words, to earn a decent amount, people have to work long hours. That takes away not only from the ability of the parents to see what their children are watching but also from the parents' ability to give them the sort of culture and approach to life that overcomes the difficulties that are raised by this legislation.When you look at it, this is legislation which is going to cause all sorts of problems. It will cause problems in the way it is policed and problems in the way that the Internet is going to be curbed, if it can be curbed. It will cause problems because of what that does not only to the industry that the Internet brings forth but also to the culture that it brings forth. It clearly needs another look. I think you will see, as you examine this, that the legislation is a tortured way and a wrong way of going about trying to get to a very fine object, the very fine object being that parents should be able to prevent the children from seeing the sort of thing that children are not allowed to see or that the parents do not want them to see. Indeed, it goes beyond children. When you think about it, there is some fearful material that nobody should properly look at. In any event, that is another issue. At the moment, the real issue in all this legislation is that it is premature. It is a wrong answer to a problem that has not been properly assessed. The answer has certainly gone nowhere near being the proper answer needed for the problems that are faced.Questions Without Notice514351435143Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of the Treasurer's speech to the Press Club, where he said, `The proposal by the Australian Democrats yesterday to introduce enormous compliance costs for all supermarkets or bakeries or milk bars is a proposal for nightmare on Main Street'? Didn't the Treasurer also say, `What the Democrats want the government to do, if this were accepted, would be to hire tax inspectors to go around putting thermometers into chickens'? Does the government still stand by the Treasurer's comments regarding the Democrats' proposal to make food GST free? Given that the government was planning to hire between 3,000 and 4,000 extra staff to administer the GST, how many of these staff does the government envisage will be employed to stick thermometers into chickens under the Democrats' proposal, as the Treasurer has claimed?5143Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What the Treasurer has said many times is how utterly hopeless the Labor Party are on tax reform. The Treasurer is absolutely dead right. When you listen to the hotchpotch that goes under the heading of tax reform for the Labor Party, you have to say that they have learnt nothing since they lost government in 1996.It is well known that we are having discussions with the Democrats at present. Unlike the Labor Party, the Democrats believe that tax reform is vital for this country. Unlike the Labor Party, the Democrats believe that it is appropriate to sit down with the government and see whether we can look at the various issues they have raised. We will look at those in a constructive manner. The government is determined to proceed with tax reform, unlike the Labor Party, which has set its face against tax reform. Senator Faulkner and his Labor Party colleagues, seeing as they chose not to go to the table, will have to wait for the outcome of the discussions with the Australian Democrats.5144Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that, unlike his humiliating crawling to the Democrats in that answer, in regard to the Democrat proposal for GST-free food the Treasurer himself said, `This is a bird with no feathers that won't fly'? Is GST-free food an idea that will not fly, as the government's Treasurer, Mr Costello, has stated?5144Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will just repeat what I gave in my initial answer. Senator Faulkner, you will have to await the outcome of the discussions that we are having with the Democrats. As you chose to set the Labor Party's face against tax reform, Senator Faulkner, you will have to wait. As I said, we are involving ourselves in very constructive discussions with the Democrats.51445144Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is addressed to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware of an article in the Australian Financial Review of 21 May, which stated:Australian companies are experiencing their strongest profit growth in four years, triggering upgrades in investment forecasts and raising hopes that the economy could expand faster than official forecasts throughout the rest of 1999. Will the minister inform the Senate what this strong growth means for the government's efforts to reduce unemployment? Is the minister aware of any further information which would support such a confident outlook for the Australian economy?5144Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We are pleased with the results of the reforms that we have been able to introduce to date—the positive benefits to unemployment and the benefits in terms of economic growth. They have not come easily; they have required hard but fair decisions which, in particular, have reeled in the high deficit regime of the past and the debt created by Labor. In the first term of government we turned the deficit into a surplus, and we started to repay the $80 billion of accumulated deficit built up by the Labor Party in just its last five years of government. Within three years we were able to start repaying that debt.The benefits to the Australian people that have flowed from that reform have been that interest rates are now at their lowest levels for 30 years and that inflation continues to run at under two per cent, which is again the best result in some 30 years. So significant benefits have flowed from the reforms that this government has been able to institute, despite the continuing opposition of the Australian Labor Party.The benefits of these reforms, as Senator Gibson said, are being recognised internationally. Just last week the OECD acknowledged Australia's strong economic performance and projected that Australia would remain among the fastest growing economies in the world. Against this background, it is not surprising to see today's results from the national survey of business expectations, conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The results of the survey for the June quarter show a continuation in the upward trend in business confidence. Business confidence continues to grow. The survey says:Looking forward towards the coming quarter, it is quite clear business expects an improvement in economic conditions. This is particularly evident in the results for sales and, importantly, in regard to our exports.This positive outlook is supported by another increase in the latest Westpac Melbourne Institute index of consumer sentiment. According to Westpac, the increase in consumer confidence suggests a positive reaction to the government's budget. The continuing strong performance of the Australian economy is good news for all Australians looking for work.It is worth reminding Senator Bolkus that, since the Howard government came to office, good economic management has helped to create—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many senators on my left interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—Good economic management has helped to create more than 400,000 new jobs. I previously informed the Senate of the positive job outlook for employment growth recorded by the Morgan and Banks job index survey and the ANZ job vacancy figures. Last week the department of employment skilled vacancy survey for May showed another increase in the number of skilled vacancies. They are now at their highest level since December 1989—in other words, the highest level since before the recession that Mr Keating and the Labor Party gave us.With those expectations, it is not surprising that the hopes for unemployed Australians continue to rise. There are 400,000 new jobs, the lowest rates of unemployment since before the Keating recession of 1990 and the highest rates of skilled vacancies now giving confidence to the unemployed. It demonstrates that if governments take the reform path, take the hard decisions, put in place the processes that are necessary, good benefits for all Australian can flow. (Time expired)51455145Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Does the minister recall telling the Senate on 18 February 1999 that:If we went down the Australian Democrats path of taking food out of the GST, it would be so much more complicated, and that would add a new burden of compliance cost to small business.What estimates has the government received of the additional compliance cost to small business of exempting food from the GST? Does the minister stand by his claim of 18 February 1999 that exempting food `is not the way to go'?5145Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Surprise, surprise! Yes, in fact, it was this government's view that it would be better for food to be included. There is no surprise in that. We said it all along. And why did we say it? Because we were concerned about complications and compliance costs. That is true.But why don't we focus for a moment on the benefits that can flow from a reform to the taxation system that takes taxes off economic growth and puts them on consumption instead—in other words, a reform of the taxation system that will encourage growth and enable us to build upon the growth that we have been able to achieve over the last three years. That is what this tax reform is all about. It is designed to build upon the achievements that we have produced to this date—in other words, bringing back expenditure and reducing interest rates. Low inflation and reform of the labour market have all contributed to the best unemployment figures since before Mr Keating's recession of 1990. But we have said all along that that is only a start, that we have to move forward, and the next great reform will be to reduce taxes on the economic expansion side of the economy.Senator Cook interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—I am surprised that Senator Cook cannot realise that. If we can do that and give particular benefit to our export sector, then we will have the opportunity to build upon the growth that we have achieved to date.For Senator Schacht's benefit, we do not shy away from that. That is the purpose of this tax reform. We put to the parliament the formula that we believed was best able to achieve those goals, and we are now in a process of seeing if we can negotiate an outcome that can achieve the fundamental benefits that we want. And what are they? We want to reduce income taxes substantially to provide incentive for economic growth. We want to reduce compliance costs in terms of the range of indirect taxes that currently exist. We want to benefit the states over the long term so that they can meet their commitments in relation to health, education and—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I remind senators on my left that persistent interjecting is out of order.BH4Senator HILL—We want to support the states in providing for their obligations in health, education, housing and so forth, and provide a funding pool to enable that to occur in the future rather than run the risk of that being undermined over time. We want to give particular benefits to the export industry—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You don't. This is rubbish.BH4Senator HILL—in order that we can lock into what I hope will be a future growth picture within the region, Senator Cook, and provide an answer to not only the current account problems but also Australian jobs for the future. So I would have thought the benefits in this tax reform would have been obvious, even to the Labor Party. It has been obvious to the Labor Party at times in their past but, for reasons of political opportunism, of course, they do not wish to see it at the moment.There is no doubt that if we do not go down this path we will be less competitive than the majority of economies in the world that have already adopted this area of tax reform. It is true that we want to do it in a way that is as simple as possible and in which the compliance costs are as low as possible. That is true.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!BH4Senator HILL—So, on balance, we will not move away from an opportunity that enables us to fundamentally reform Australia's outdated, outmoded taxation system in a way which will give real benefits to all Australians.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I remind opposition senators that persistent interjecting is disorderly. Persistent and wilful interjection and disregard for the authority of the chair can have certain consequences.5146Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Now that the minister has conceded that his view of 18 February is in the past tense—that he has apparently agreed that he has changed his view from February of this year—what now is the government's estimate of the compliance costs to small business of exempting food from the GST?5146Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I repeat what I said: we want compliance costs to be as low as possible; therefore, we want the system to be as simple as possible. That remains our desired outcome in any negotiations that are taking place at the moment because we want the maximum benefits to flow to the Australian economy and therefore to all Australians, and particularly to those who are unemployed. That is what Labor cannot seem to understand. By ensuring continued economic growth, we have the best opportunity to provide jobs for Australians who are out of work. That is why we are committed to taxation reform, and that is why we are committed to reform that can be achieved at the lowest possible cost.51465146Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. What is the significance of Standard and Poors' upgrading of Australia's credit rating from AA to AA plus?5146Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Calvert, for that most important question. Senator Calvert reminds us of a very important announcement that was made last week.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Kempy, lift your game.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you should not be shouting in that fashion.WW4Senator KEMP—It has taken this country 10 years to recover part of the way from Labor's economic mismanagement which cost this country not just one but two credit rating downgrades. The ratings agency Standard and Poors first downgraded our foreign currency debt rating to AA plus in August 1986 under the Hawke Labor government. Confirming the then major external imbalances in the Australian economy, Australia was further downgraded to a AA credit rating in October 1989.However, just last week Standard and Poors announced that Australia had been upgraded back to a AA plus credit rating, the second highest international credit rating. This is a very important independent objective endorsement of the quality of Australia's fiscal management and performance prospects. It was a decision made for four main reasons: the rapidly decreasing net foreign debt of the public sector, falling from 87 per cent of annual exports in 1994 to 35 per cent now; the wide consensus of continued fiscal restraint; Australia's prudent monetary policy and low inflation; and favourably, of course, the very good performance of the Australian economy.History will note as fact that the last Labor government, at the stage when of course the current Leader of the Opposition was finance minister, presided over a downgrading of Australia's credit rating. Australia's credit rating upgrade is a recognition that the economic course the Australian government is currently following is right for the times. The policies of the Howard government are bringing their own rewards: low interest rates, the lowest in memory; low inflation, running at substantially lower levels than in the OECD; rising real wages; more jobs—the unemployment rate now, of course, is around a nine-year low; and a strong and growing economy. The Australian economy is growing faster than the economies in Europe and even faster than the high-performing US economy. The coalition delivered a surplus budget this year, last year and the year before that, and has repaid debt shamelessly accumulated by the last government who ran Australia into the red by close to $80 billion. Credit ratings are an indication of the economic performance of this government, and it is fitting to recall that when Labor was in government it presided over two downgrades. The coalition has the runs on the board. We have a strong record and we are facing an opposition which is determined to block reform and change at every opportunity.51475147Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Does the minister recall informing the Senate on 17 February 1999:. . . trying to exempt food would be an absolute nightmare, a legal maze, a quagmire into which small business would sink without compensation for it.Given the minister's concerns regarding the cost to small businesses of exempting food from the GST, what compensation would be necessary if food were to be exempted?AW5CARRSenator Carr—No brief?5147Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You do not need a brief on this one, Senator Carr. The fact is that Senator Conroy's belated interest in the subject matter is welcome but, unfortunately, Labor dealt themselves out of a place at the table many, many months ago. If you had wanted to be serious about tax reform you had every opportunity. You have been urged by some of your retired colleagues to actually get fair dinkum about the issue. Mr Della Bosca wears a halo these days, doesn't he, amongst some of you? There he is; he is out there telling you that you made monumental mistakes in not talking to the government about Telstra.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, would you direct your remarks to the chair. Senators on my left should cease shouting.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, we should not have jokes interjected like that; we could somehow be asked to take them seriously. The fact is, of course, that the government will be seriously addressing all the issues that Labor manifestly failed to address, that they had the opportunity to address. The discussions that we are having with the Australian Democrats are very constructive, unlike the obstructive approach that you have adopted from day one. I can understand why it is, because Mr Beazley is a burned out case. He is not interested in reform of any shape or sort. And, of course, the last thing he would want is to have to sit down and go through the long hard slog of trying to work out what might be doable and what is not.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Nice of you to turn up before half-time, Senator Ray.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections. I have already spoken to Labor senators. Your behaviour is not in accordance with the standing orders. Some are persistently and I believe wilfully breaching the orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—What ought to be recognised is that the Australian Democrats went through the last election campaign acknowledging that the GST had particular virtues in terms of reforming the Australian taxation system. They know that it will remove all of those monumentally complicated arrangements that currently exist because of the wholesale sales tax arrangements. You are not interested in any of those. You have not learned from the experience of the last election, where the punters caught you short. You were stark naked, going into the election with no policies. It is a criminal offence in electoral terms, and you just cannot get away with it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, you must address your remarks to the chair and not directly across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, the GST will introduce a much simpler approach than the current wholesale sales tax system, particularly for small businesses. The new pay-as-you-go system will replace five different and complex systems. So small business will be a major winner. And, of course, all of those who had the chance at the last election and voted yes know full well that there is only one game in town, and you are not part of it.51485148Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The government has previously indicated its willingness to seriously consider using, if necessary, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, to protect the Patagonian toothfish and the southern bluefin tuna.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!DT6Senator BARTLETT—I am sorry that species extinction is not of concern to the ALP, but it is certainly of concern to the Democrats. Given the lack of progress through other channels in protecting these marine species, will the government now act to prevent the extinction of these species by proceeding with nominating them under CITES?5148Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for the serious question, which is more than I get from the ALP.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, you and your colleagues should not be shouting across the chamber. There is a level of sledging going on during this question time which is totally out of order and unacceptable. You are denying the authority of the chair by shouting in that fashion.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: I think you would have noted during the last question asked by Senator Bartlett that most of the noise in the chamber was opposition senators laughing at the Democrats and the government. It was not sledging.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not correct, and there is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—In response to the question, yes, we have said that we would consider a CITES listing for the two species mentioned by the honourable senator—the Patagonian toothfish and the southern bluefin tuna. That meeting of CITES is next year. But we have also said that we do not think that it is the best option for conservation of either species. In relation to the Patagonian toothfish, the honourable senator would be aware of the actions that we took at the CCAMLR meeting late last year in Hobart: basically to increase conservation measures with observers on vessels, vessel monitoring devices so that they can be followed by satellites and the like, and increasing surveillance as well.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—And nothing happened. What have you done about it?BH4Senator HILL—The honourable senator says `Nothing happened.' I might remind him that, using surveillance this year, no vessel was found in Australian waters in breach of our jurisdiction.In addition, we said that it would be wise to move towards a stock certification scheme and trading restrictions, and we said that we would take that to a special meeting—which we caused to be held—of CCAMLR in Brussels last month. That meeting was held and, in relation to putting in place such a scheme which would be a disincentive for the taking of illegal stock because it would be much more difficult to trade in that stock, I think it is fair to say we achieved about three-quarters of our objectives. We are currently considering what further action we should take before this year's meeting of CCAMLR because there is no doubt that an effective CCAMLR regime not only respected by all CCAMLR parties but also supported by an effective certification and trade scheme is the best way to conserve the Patagonian toothfish.In relation to the southern bluefin tuna, the best option is of course to operate within the commission and to have it work effectively. I take the opportunity of commending Senator Parer for the work that he did in regard to the increased experimental take of the Japanese to which we have been, and continue to be, opposed. There are some slow but positive steps being taken. In particular, there are good vibes with additional countries coming within the commission which will make a significant difference. But the negotiation which is taking place at the moment continues to be difficult. If the commission can be made to work effectively, there is no doubt in my mind that that is a more effective way of conserving the stock than through CITES because, as the honourable senator will know, states can simply exempt themselves from the application of CITES and thus it becomes ineffective as far as they are concerned.So what I can say to the honourable senator is: yes, we are looking at all options that will enable us to better conserve both these species which are under considerable pressure at the moment. CITES remains one option that is on the table but there are other options that may in fact be better, so we are not avoiding taking full opportunity of those options as well.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Labor senators will cease shouting.5149Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. I realise that bodies such as CCAMLR and CCSBT are considering this issue, but obviously they have not been effective enough in preventing ongoing damage and threat to the species despite the positive but, as you say yourself, slow progress. If the government waits until the next CCAMLR meeting in November, how much more time will you have to commit to a CITES nomination before the CITES meeting deadline? Surely if you make the decision now to announce you will seek to get CITES listing it would put more pressure on these other bodies to ensure they come to effective agreements that will make not only slow and positive progress but also concrete and firm progress in preventing the demise of these species.5149Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is a judgment we have to make but, on the other hand, we have the concern that if we move towards CITES now it may well be interpreted as a signal that we are placing less reliance upon the other two methods, and in particular the need to strengthen and improve those methods. That is why we have been cautious about taking that step. But, as I said, the CITES possibility is on the table and we will continue to work down a path to achieve the best possible conservation outcomes.51495149Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does Senator Kemp recall informing the Senate on 15 February 1999:. . . there would be major problems for the tax package, as you are aware, if food were extracted from that tax package and made GST free. I think the experience in other countries around the world has shown that it would lead to major issues of compliance and major costs of compliance.To what extent do compliance costs rise as a consequence of exempting food from the GST, and does the minister stand by his statement that there would be major problems if food were exempted from the GST?5150Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Sherry for that question. I recall during the debate on the GST bills Senator Sherry being asked a question about the Labor Party policy, and he urged us all to wait at least 1½ years until the federal conference of the Labor Party. Senator Sherry has also indicated he is a very strong supporter of the wholesale sales tax. It was quite interesting that Mr Beazley was asked a question on the wholesale sales tax on the weekend, and this is what Mr Beazley was asked:Given the experience of the Keating Government in 1993, can you give a guarantee that if you become Prime Minister, Wholesale Sales taxes will not go up?We waited and we waited, and he finally said this:I certainly think we could guarantee that unquestionably for the life of one Parliament.This is your tax—your wholesale sales tax. It has become very clear that there is no lock-in there; Mr Beazley said maybe for the term of one parliament. As Senator Hill put it, we are in the process of trying to reform a broken-down tax system. We are in the process of trying to have a tax system which will fit Australia for the 21st century. We are the party of tax reform and the Labor Party have set themselves against tax reform. It is very clear—and the government can read the numbers in this chamber—that it makes sense for us to have negotiations with the other parties in this chamber to see whether we can get a major tax reform package through this chamber. That is precisely what we are trying to do. That is what the Australian public would expect us to do, and Senator Sherry—as with Senator Faulkner and all his other colleagues—will have to await the outcome of the negotiations that we are having with the Australian Democrats.5150Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Kemp, you say you are in the process of reforming a broken tax system, and apparently you are going to adopt a solution that, according to Mr Costello, is a `nightmare on Main Street'. But are you aware of the reported comments of Gerry Taylor, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, regarding GST compliance costs for small business? He warned:If food is taken out of the GST, then it will be much more complex and the compliance will be more costly.Isn't the realisation of growing compliance costs one of the reasons why more and more small business owners are doubtful of the benefits of the GST, and fewer business owners actually support the tax package according to the latest Yellow Pages Small Business Index?5150Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—One thing is absolutely clear: small business does not support the Labor Party. Small business does not support the political arm of the trade union movement and never will. We are about delivering major tax reform. We are delivering major tax reform so that this can benefit the economy, small business, medium sized business and big business. That is what we are about, and that is the reason why we are having negotiations with the Democrats on this important issue—to see whether we can move the tax reform process forward.51505150Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. In relation to his negotiations with Senator Allison from the Democrats on the environmental impact of the proposed GST package, will the $1 billion offered at the outset in diesel fuel rebates by the Democrats not be effectively a $40 per tonne subsidy to woodchip trucks taking woodchips from Australia's wild forests and exporting them to Japan? Secondly, does it not involve a $600 million or $700 million subsidy to the mining industry, including the coal industry—a prodigious producer of greenhouse gases—and even the uranium industry, with a modest component in future going to the Jabiluka uranium mine? Finally, I ask: in relation to the Patagonian toothfish and the southern bluefin tuna, will not the Democrats' proposed $1 billion subsidy involve subsidising the Australian fishing fleet fishing for those very species? (Time expired)5151Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am pleased that the Patagonian toothfish is getting a good public airing today. It might raise community interest in the subject matter. What Senator Brown has never been prepared to accept is that, through the tax reform package, we actually seek to achieve win-win outcomes—good economic outcomes in terms of growth and job opportunities but also in an environmentally responsible way.In relation to diesel fuel: yes, we do want to reduce transport costs in this country, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Because of the size of Australia, we are at a competitive disadvantage compared with many of those with whom we deal. There is no secret about that. Rural and regional Australia pays high transport costs, a very high percentage of their business inputs, and we as a government wish them to be more competitive, for obvious reasons. We want them to thrive, we want them to expand and we want them to provide employment. That is why we were looking at ways in which we could reduce the costs of transport in this country.As Senator Brown knows, although he might not want to acknowledge it, much of the transport in rural and regional Australia is diesel powered and, in many instances, there is not another practical alternative to that. That is why we have introduced this element of the reform package. It is part of the answer that I gave earlier today: that we want a more competitive economy that can enable us to build upon the achievements of the last three years and provide more jobs for Australians.There is also an opportunity in this discussion to achieve some more environmental benefits. I am surprised that Senator Brown has so little interest in the opportunities for environmental gain that he would not bother to come and talk to us about them. He has a vote in this place as well, but how often has he said, `As a voter in this place, I want to achieve an environmental gain'? Never! All he wants to do is to stand on the other side and complain about the behaviour of others. There is an opportunity for Senator Brown in this place to further environmental opportuni ties, but he does not seem to understand how he might use it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I specifically asked the minister, in particular at the end, about the effect the Democrats' package of subsidising the fishing industry will have on the Patagonian toothfish and the southern bluefin tuna. I ask that you bring him back to the questions I asked in the time left for him to answer them.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your question took more than the full minute, and there were a number of issues that you raised within it. Senator Hill is able to deal with those matters as he sees fit. I cannot direct him how to answer the question or to which bits of the question he may give greater emphasis to.BH4Senator HILL—All rural industry that has high transport costs will benefit from our tax package. Yes, rural industry in Tasmania as well, Senator Brown, will be benefited by our tax package. It will mean economic growth in Tasmania and more jobs in Tasmania. I would have thought that Senator Brown would be interested in that. If that is in the timber industry, so be it. Fuel costs in the timber industry are relatively high compared with other industries. If we can make our timber industry more competitive, I would have thought that Senator Brown—if he were interested in jobs—would applaud it. There are ways in which we can achieve environmental benefits as well. If Senator Brown is interested in seriously achieving those goals, our door is always open. I have no doubt that, through sensible discussion, he might be able to achieve something worth while as well.5151Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I come back to the point of the Democrats' question in defence of the Patagonian toothfish and the southern bluefin tuna. I asked the minister specifically: is the Democrats' diesel fuel rebate going to apply to the fishing boats that are going to fish those very species, on their way to extinction, out of the water?5151Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is Senator Brown's moment of theatre. We are committed to sound environmental outcomes, conservation of endangered or vulnerable species being a very important part of that. If he had listened to the answer on southern bluefin tuna and Patagonian toothfish, he would have heard exactly what this government is doing—which I have to say is more than any previous government has ever done—on the issue of marine conservation. There are a lot of ways in which he could help this government on matters of marine conservation, if he were serious about the issue, rather than wanting a moment of theatre in this place.51525152Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware that Senator Lees has accused the government of failing to `participate fully and properly in the Senate GST committee process' and `a lot of the material that has been put before us in the talks with the government should have been put before the Senate committees'? Why did the government attempt to deceive the Senate and the Australian people by withholding essential material from the Senate inquiry?5152Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of course I do not accept the premise of the question. The government has been extremely straightforward in the information it has put before the public. We sought a mandate from the Australian people for tax reform. Our tax reform plans were exposed to the public before the last election. They were widely debated in the course of the last election, and they are well known. We are quite aware a very extensive committee inquiry was established by the Senate, and the government has provided information to those committees. Certainly, if there is other information required in the course of negotiations that other parties may well be having, it can also be considered by the government.We believe that, unlike the Labor Party, we have been extremely straightforward in the presentation of material to the public. The Labor Party, of course, in the notorious 1993 election went to the people promising tax cuts, but they never mentioned to the people they were going to raise the wholesale sales taxes across the board, they never mentioned to the Australian people they were going to raise excise duties and they never mentioned to the people that they were going to abolish the l-a-w tax cuts. I think I can say with great sincerity that the government has been very straightforward in the information that it has put before the Australian public.5152Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My question was about the Senate committee. I remind the minister that Senator Lees said `a lot of material that has been put before us should have been put before the Senate committees'. Who is right—Senator Lees or you? The second question is: will the government undertake to make available to the Senate as a whole the material which it is now making available to Senator Lees and which Senator Lees has said should have been made available to the Senate GST inquiry?5152Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Lees is quite entitled to her views. It does not mean that the government has to agree with everything that Senator Lees or anyone else says in this place. We are very hopeful that, with a constructive outcome from the negotiations, the debate on the bills will proceed, and I am sure that any questions that people have will be fully and appropriately answered, as they always are.51525152Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Biotechnology has been described as the new frontier for science, opening up huge opportunities in medical research, industry and agriculture. I ask the minister: what is the government doing to support Australian development in this growing sector?5152Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Parer is quite right: biotechnology is a very significant growth field for science. I think it offers very significant opportunities for Australian science and industry, particularly in relation to job creation and future export income. We are keen as a government to ensure that Australia captures the full benefits of this technology. We were pleased to announce as part of this year's budget an investment by the government of $17½ million towards this industry, particularly to develop a biotechnology strategy for Australia.I think it is interesting to note that support at both the Commonwealth and state levels for this industry already stands at $200 million to $250 million per annum through the CSIRO, CRCs, R&D assistance and state government support. Of course, our doubling of the nation's medical research budget over the next six years should also contribute significantly to our capacity in biotechnology. In the budget, we announced the establishment of Biotechnology Australia, which will be responsible for working with all the stakeholders in this industry to develop that national strategy and manage the government's biotechnology approach. We have also set up a biotechnology ministerial council to develop and monitor that strategy.Biotechnology presents big opportunities for advances in medical science, in particular, and also for improving the quantity and quality of Australian agriculture—already at the leading edge in terms of world production. But clearly there are, as we have seen in other nations, people with some concern about the development of this industry and this technology. So in the budget we announced a commitment of $7½ million towards the establishment of a statutory office of gene regulation, in order to ensure the community has confidence in the independent regulation of biotechnology products. We also announced a commitment to a very significant public information campaign to ensure that the public fully understands the opportunities involved for Australia in this industry. Through those initiatives we can ensure that Australia can take advantage of this industry in a sensible way.Of course, this is not our only initiative in this area of science and research. The biotechnology initiative very much complements other initiatives of the Howard government and our support for research. The total commitment by Australia to research and development now stands at around $4 billion per annum, which as a proportion of GDP puts us in the top five countries in the OECD. In fact, the budget saw an increase in our funding for science agencies. There is an extra $82 million for the CSIRO over the next three years, restoring the funding that was stripped off the CSIRO by our predecessors. We are committed to providing $664 million in this budget towards supporting business R&D—an increase of seven per cent over the previous year. We are trying to do as much as we can to support commercialisation through improvements to the pool development fund.The biggest impediment to the development of biotechnology is clearly the capital gains tax system that we inherited from the Labor Party. The most important thing that we can do to ensure biotechnology does produce the goods for Australia is to reform the hopeless capital gains tax system we inherited from Labor. I hope that will come about as part of the review of business taxation, and we welcome Labor's support for reform of capital gains tax. The government's initiatives will help ensure that Australia is at the leading edge of the development of biotechnology, which could well be one of Australia's most successful and important industries in the 21st century.51535153Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister still believe, as he stated in his media release of 20 April 1999, that exempting food from the GST in the manner proposed by the Australian Democrats will result in a situation in which tinned caviar is GST free but fish fingers are taxed, and that tinned spaghetti will not be taxed but that the same spaghetti served ready to eat in a plastic takeaway container will? Does the minister still contend that there would be massive definitional problems in differentiating between fresh and processed food for the purposes of GST treatment? Has the minister's attention been drawn to any evidence that would alter his strongly held views on this subject? If so, could the minister enlighten the Senate as to what that evidence now is?5153Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Forshaw for that question. The truth of the matter is that this government is after major tax reform: tax reform for the benefit of the Australian community, tax reform which will deliver major tax cuts and tax reform which will continue the fiscal responsibility which has so marked this government.It is no secret at all that negotiations are being carried out by the government to see whether we can constructively advance the tax reform agenda. If Senator Forshaw wanted to know the nature of those discussions and wanted to be fully appraised of the details which are occurring in the course of the discussions, the Labor Party should have adopted a positive attitude to tax reform, but it did not. The Labor Party counted itself out of the game from day one. The Labor Party is completely irrelevant to the tax reform process. We make no apology whatsoever for seeking to advance the cause of tax reform.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister's answer is totally irrelevant to the question. The question related to his specific comments in a press release of 20 April where he said that exempting food would cause significant definitional problems. I have asked him whether he still holds those views or whether he has altered them and, if he has, on the basis of what evidence. So far he has spent pretty close to three minutes talking about everything except the question. Madam President, would you mind asking him to at least have a go at answering the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister has been dealing with the subject that was raised in your preamble and question.WW4Senator KEMP—The subject that was raised—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I raise a point of order, Madam President. At no stage in my question did I ever raise the issue of so-called tax reform, which is what the minister claims he is talking about. I take it from your ruling that this is, in fact, tax reform. I never mentioned the words in my question, but that is what the minister claims he is answering. I asked a question specifically about his views in relation to a GST on food. So far he has not said one word on that issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There was a preamble and a question and the minister is able to comment on the preamble. I am sure he is aware of the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Of course the question involved tax reform. If Senator Forshaw wants to be part of the overall debate on tax reform he is in the wrong party. The Labor Party has no intention of pursuing any tax reform agenda. Senator, if you want to know what is going on around the table, you are in the wrong party.51545154Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. I ask the minister: what progress has there been in the government's announced intention to re-establish the G airspace trial between Canberra and Ballina? What is the timetable for re-establishing the trial? What measures will the government be taking to ensure the near misses and safety problems that occurred during the last trial are not repeated?5154Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Woodley for that question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Of course, of course! Of course you do.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I warn opposition senators that the behaviour that has been going on this afternoon is disorderly and will not be tolerated.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Woodley has an ongoing interest in aviation matters. In fact, he has asked—Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I remind you of the standing orders.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—He has asked a number of questions about aviation matters. I can recall answering about three or four in this chamber. I observe, in passing, that the Labor Party have not asked one since I have been in this position.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I rise on a point of order. Madam President, it is quite clearly disorderly for Senator Macdonald to talk about Labor Party questions when answering a question from Senator Woodley. He ought to continue with his shameless crawling to the Australian Democrats.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I was simply observing, in response to interjections from the Labor Party, that you never get a serious question from them about policy issues.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Quite clearly Senator Macdonald is out of order in answering the question in this way. I ask you to rule him out of order. He has been given a dorothy dix by Senator Woodley. Why doesn't he get on and answer it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam President, I keep responding to the interjections by the Labor Party. I should not do so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think you should perhaps ignore them, Senator, and deal with Senator Woodley's question.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I appreciate that, Madam President. Last year, as Senator Woodley would know, because he follows this—the Labor Party have no interest in it whatsoever—CASA conducted a trial of class G airspace in the Canberra-Ballina corridor. The trial was concluded on 13 December by Mr Mick Toller, the Director of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The key feature of the proposed changes to class G airspace is that they introduce radar based information in the airspace for the first time, subject to availability. I am aware of recent press quotes—and that is what Senator Woodley was perhaps referring to—from Mr Toller stating that changes to G-class airspace will go ahead and that Airservices Australia is drafting a sensible timetable for introduction of the new changes.On 11 January this year, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority published a summary of responses to industry comments relating to the trial of changes to G-class airspace. The summary contained a new partial proposal for changes to class G airspace in terminal areas, taking into account the responses collected. In releasing the new partial proposal, CASA has once again sought industry comment and that comment period closed on 28 February this year. CASA is now reviewing the comments received. No changes are expected to the class G airspace over the next nine months pending the outcome of the BASI investigation into last year's trial and the full implementation of the TAAATS program. The government is committed to regulatory reform in aviation and will continue to seek significant progress towards best practice. I emphasise, as always, that for the government, and for Senator Woodley obviously, safety is paramount in these reforms.I conclude by again thanking Senator Woodley for the question. He does have an interest in this topic. I find it a little sad that the opposition do not take an interest in these matters. They never seem to be interested in any sensible policy position and can only be negative about this, as they are about all things.5155Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Arising out of that answer, particularly the reference to media reports, I ask the minister about a comment by the Acting Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Paul Scully-Power, who was reported in the Australian newspaper recently as telling staff that they must `get on with the job of restoring public confidence in the authority'. I ask the minister: what will the government be doing to repair the damage done to CASA and to public confidence in Australia's air safety regulation during the regime of the former chairman?5155Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has released draft proposals to restructure CASA. As Senator Woodley and government senators would know, there has been some concern about the efficiency of CASA and for that reason CASA undertook this consideration of restructure. The proposed new structure outlines the arrangements to support CASA's three core areas of safety compliance, safety standards and safety promotion. CASA is responding to concerns that have been raised and is working in a very constructive way, consulting inter ested aviation bodies, to make sure it is very effective in doing what it is there to do, and that is to regulate safety for Australian airlines.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice5156515615:01:005156Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—On Thursday, 29 April Senator Brown asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question, part of which I took on notice. I have now received from the Minister for Defence an answer to the remainder of the senator's question, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—On Thursday, 29 April 1999 (Hansard page 3884) Senator Brown asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the following question without noticeI refer to the Australian Defence Force's s welcome two-year contract with Incat Tasmania worth $38 Million for the supply of a high-speed catamaran to the armed forces. Can the minister tell the senate what the nature of that contact is—sale, lease or otherwise—and whether Tasmanian duties, such as stamp duties, will be paid on that sale or, if not, whether some arrangement will be made to compensate Tasmania for taxes forgone in this very welcome sale by Incat?The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard .(1) At this time, there are two contractual relationships currently being negotiated. The main agreement is the charter agreement which is anticipated will be signed next week and will be supplemented by a contract for maintenance during the period of the charter which will be finalised in the near future.Charter AgreementThe charter agreement is known as a "Bareboat" charter which is a type of demise charter under which possession and control of the vessel is passed to the Commonwealth without master and crew. Under the charter a Naval master and crew will operate the vessel. The contractor may provide some crew for a limited period to provide advice however these would be under Naval control.The charter agreement is based on the "Baltic and International Maritime Conference Standard Bareboat Charter" codenamed BARECON 89 adapted as appropriate. The agreement includes some minor vessel modifications to be carried out by the contractor and the training of a Naval crew. The charter agreement is for an initial period of two (2) years plus three (3) options to extend the charter period as required by the Commonwealth. The agreement may also contain options to purchase the vessel or to upgrade to a larger vessel.Maintenance ContractUnder the charter agreement it is the charterer's responsibility to maintain the vessel to agreed standards. In keeping with current trends within the Department, it is intended to outsource these maintenance responsibilities.(2) The extent to which stamp duties apply to a transaction, whether with the Commonwealth or with a commercial entity will depend on the nature of the instrument. As stated above, the contracts currently proposed are not a sale and would only attract nominal duties (in the order of $10 to $20). The position would be the same if a commercial entity entered into an identical contract. No arrangements will therefore need to be made for taxes forgone.(3) As stated above there are two contractual relationships, the charter agreement and the maintenance contract. However, the total estimated cost of $38.845 million also includes personnel support costs. base support costs and fuel. The summary of cost allocation over the charter period follows: $mCharter costs 26.486Modifications 0.430Personnel support 1.000Base support 0.300Training 0.300Maintenance 3.375Fuel 6.954Total 38.845Yours sincerelyJOCELYN NEWMAN515615:02:005156Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to questions without notice asked today.In Senator Kemp, we have a politically wounded minister representing the Treasurer in this chamber, someone who the government does not have any faith in and who is not involved in the current negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the government's GST package. In question time today Senator Kemp was comprehensively unable to explain why, after months of hardline rhetoric from the government on its refusal to change the government position on anything, the Prime Minister now is suddenly willing to compromise. Mr Howard knows that Treasury has told him that if the GST is not applied to almost everything it will not work as a tax. Mr Howard believes that as soon as food and other items are exempted from the GST the tax system will become truly ramshackle. He knows that Treasury abhors an exemption, but that is what we are facing. This is the same Mr Howard who for a long time has given assurances that the GST was perfect and could not be changed. Those commitments will go into the rubbish bin of history, just like Mr Howard's claims that there are no losers or there will never, ever be a GST, or even his core and non-core promises. It will be interesting to see how many backflips on cast-iron commitments or long-held positions of principle there will be in the current negotiations with the Democrats.Mr Howard has said again and again he will not budge on the issue of the exemption of food—food will not be exempted. He says he will fix the tax system. On 12 February, on Neil Mitchell's radio program, he took the Treasury line supporting the unified application of the GST on food. In that Sunday interview on 18 April he was asked, `Will you exempt food from the GST?' He said no. In Brisbane on 14 May he said, `We are not prepared to back down on food.' On 21 April Mr Costello said:What the Democrats want the government to do, if this were accepted, would be to hire tax inspectors to go around putting thermometers into chickens. You really want a tax system where we're employing people sticking thermometers into chickens to try and run a tax system—it's nightmare on Main Street. It is not real life . . . It won't work . . . And we ought to get on with real tax reform which is taking complexity out of the system rather than putting it in.That is what Mr Howard and Mr Costello said. And, of course, you cannot believe them. Now we have a situation where Senator Lees and the Democrats need to take whatever deal they can out of this from their negotiations with the government. We hear a lot of lectures about what is allegedly the most democratically driven party in the country. In a feature in the Sydney Morning Herald a day or so ago I saw that the Democrat rank and file are consulted continuously. One ex-staffer called it `Democracy gone mad'. The Democrats should take this deal back to their members and see what they say. Senator Lees revealed on the Sunday program that the government has suddenly reached into its bottom drawer and found a whole lot more information than was provided to the GST committee of the Senate. The government should disclose that information for the benefit of the Senate and the public. That would be consistent with the way Senator Lees has argued so often in this chamber, that this sort of material should be made public. (Time expired)15:07:005157Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I do not know who prepares these notes for Senator Faulkner, but they prove one thing and that is I never thought I would see the day when I could compare Senator Faulkner with the former leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans. They suffer from the same complaint.FF4CHAPMANSenator Chapman—Verbal diarrhoea.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—No, `relevance deprivation', I think was the term that was used. Was anybody more irrelevant than Senator Faulkner in his comments today or could anything be more irrelevant than the questions from the Labor Party today, a party that has totally dealt itself out of the exercise? The Labor Party is suffering from relevance deprivation today, and none more so than its leader in this chamber, Senator Faulkner.We are currently having discussions with the Democrats because they also believe the current tax system is broken and that it is in need of reform. The Democrats believe that is the case and they said so while we were receiving evidence from the various organisations and bodies that gave evidence to the select committee. The Democrats, and Senator Murray as a member of that committee, believe that the current tax system is broken and is in need of reform.The package that we took to the election included food because we believed that including food was part of the best possible package overall. But in this chamber it is only the art of the achievable, and the Labor Party know that. I remember seeing them come into this place in 1993 with the bill generally known as the Mabo bill. When the Mabo bill left the House of Representatives the Labor Party said it was a perfect bill, but then they came and made 300 amendments to their own bill in this chamber.I make no apologies for the fact that I believe the package that we took to the election was fair and that it was the best possible. Others in this chamber disagree with that, including Senator Harradine, who made his position quite clear. The government believe that taxation reform is important and that we must press ahead and reform the taxation system as we know it today. Only the Labor Party believe there is no need for tax reform, and that is why they are totally irrelevant when it comes to this debate. They have tried to make the issue the GST and nothing else, as though the tax reform package that we put before the people and are now debating is only dealing with the GST. There are a great number of elements in that tax package, including the new pay-as-you-go system, which will replace five different complex systems of returns every quarter. It will reduce interactions with the Taxation Office and ensure that tax payments more closely reflect trading conditions for individual businesses.The Labor Party when in government had the opportunity to do that for 13 years and not a thing did they do to reduce the complexities of taxation as it applies to small businesses. Small businesses, if this tax reform goes through, will also benefit from the significant income tax cuts announced by the government, through a further extension of the CGT rollover relief and retirement exemption and through the reform of fuel taxation. There is a whole raft of things in this new tax system and in the tax reform package which the Labor Party are trying to deny to Australians. They are things that the small business community have been asking us for years to make changes to. They asked the Labor Party when they were in government to make some of those changes and they absolutely refused to do it.Senator Cook talked about the government not taking part fully in the Senate committee process. I do not know where Senator Cook was, but you could have fooled me that we were not taking part fully in the Senate process. Over a period of three months we spent practically every day that we were not in this place hearing submissions at the select committee, and other committees took evidence as well. Senator Cook, in suggesting that we did not take part fully, should correct himself. (Time expired)15:12:005158Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I want to take up that last point. I never accused the government of not taking part in the Senate committee process. Isn't it curious that that allegation should now be made? My question to the Assistant Treasurer in this place was whether what Senator Lees said on the Sunday program yesterday was true that a lot of information is now being made available to the Democrats that should have been made available to the Senate committee. That was the question I put. I did not accuse the government of not taking part in the inquiry. I am accusing the government of—and let there be absolutely no doubt about this, based on the answer given by the minister today and the support that Senator Lees has given to her statement on the Sunday program—not telling the truth to the Senate committee of inquiry.That raises a fundamental question about democracy in this country and the right of Australians to know what their government is up to. The executive wing of this government withheld information. That is what Senator Lees said, and you can run but you cannot hide from that charge. We will press that charge to get every last ounce of information that is available so that Australians do know. It was the Liberal Party that ambushed Australians with a nice, glossy piece of paper before the last election telling them of the so-called upside, selling the GST.It was only the committee of inquiry that found pensions will erode and that pensioners will lose their benefits up to about three years after the GST comes in. It was only the committee of inquiry that found 120,000 Australians more will be out of work. It was only the committee of inquiry that found out about a major complaint from the small business community that compliance costs would escalate because this is a costly tax to collect. It was only the Senate committee of inquiry that put an end to this continual cant which we heard from the Leader of the Government in the Senate today about the elements of improvement for exports. Don't you know the exchange rate rises and the efficiencies are cancelled out? The big lie you have been telling this country is `jobs through exports'. You forget about the floating exchange rate and you do not understand or you choose to ignore how the economy works.Since last Friday week in this chamber a number of quite important matters have arisen in Australia. The AC Nielsen poll conducted by the Age found that 58 per cent of Australians are opposed to the GST—up from 54 per cent. To the question, `Did Senator Harradine do the right thing?' the Sun-Herald poll found that 70 per cent of Australians said that he did. On the poll of which party would have won an election last week, 54 per cent of the electorate on a two-party preferred outcome would have voted for the Australian Labor Party. They are the poll findings; they are the changes that have occurred in the space of one week. If the government believes it has a mandate, why then is it refusing to go back to the electorate? You ambushed the electorate with a bunch of lies before the last election campaign. They have been revealed and now you refuse to go back. Why do you refuse to go back? Because you know that they now see through you and you will get done. I have a letter here today—and I am sure a number of us have received it—from a company called Roxburgh Securities which thanks me for opposing the GST and gives 13 examples of what is wrong with it. The first example is that it is `regressive, complicated and inefficient'. The second is, `At an election voters will punish those parties who support it.' The third of the points is that Howard and Costello cannot be trusted. This is what John Howard said on 2 May 1995:There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy. Never, ever. It's dead, it was killed by the voters in the last election. The GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future.Let me conclude my remarks by again quoting from the letter. These points go on: the GST will worsen unemployment, self-funded retirees will be worse off, housing will be hit, all property will be impacted—13 points of opposition from business. (Time expired)15:17:005159Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—What utter humbug and hypocrisy we are hearing yet again from the Labor Party with regard to the government's tax reform package. They are now condemning the government for giving consideration to some changes to its proposed package. They are actually condemning the government for consulting with the Democrats about the final nature of this package in an effort to pass it through the Senate. We know that consultation is something that the Labor Party know absolutely nothing about. During their 13 years in government there is example after example of their failure to consult with the community about the sorts of changes which they made during that period.The Labor Party's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the fact that they have the capacity to pass this tax package in its original form. They can vote with the government and pass this package as proposed by the government. But, of course, they refuse to do that because their only interest is in being spoilers. They are not interested in improving the Australian economy and tax structure; they are simply interested in being spoilers—opposition for the sake of opposition. That is what the Labor Party is about. They are not at all interested in policy. Indeed, they are a policy free zone, as we know only too well.The Labor Party want a continuation of the ramshackle tax system that we have in operation now—the ramshackle tax system that they had during their 13 years in government and did absolutely nothing about. They want a continuation of the wholesale sales tax structure—an inefficient and outdated structure that was put in place in the 1930s. It was a tax structure for the 1930s economy and for 1930s consumption patterns. The wholesale sales tax is totally irrelevant to an Australia moving into the 21st century with growth in the importance of services both in the economy and in consumption patterns. Labor on tax are caught in a time warp. They are caught in the 1930s. They do not want any change to the structure that has been in place since then. However, Labor's think tank has come up with the brilliant idea to impose de facto death duties.Senator Conroy interjecting—Senator Ferguson interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Ferguson, if you wish to have a conversation could you please sit next to one another or go outside and not do it across the chamber at top note.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—The change that Labor's think tank wants to introduce is a de facto death duty. That has been recommended only in the last few days. It again shows how out of date they are: death duties were abolished more than two decades ago by the Fraser Liberal government as a result of growing community outrage about that unsatisfactory form of tax.The reason they are caught in this time warp is that they practise the politics of envy. It simply demonstrates that Labor are a party of the past. Their attitude to workplace relations shows that they are in a time warp and out of date. They want us to return to a workplace relations system that was in operation in the 19th century. They want to reverse the reforms and the changes that this government has made to workplace relations to set Australia up for the 21st century. The Labor Party on policy issues are nothing more than a dinosaur. They cannot extricate themselves from the 19th century or from the politics of envy—a type of politics which is quite irrelevant to Australia as it enters the 21st century.Tax reform is essential and urgent for Australia. Our current tax system is out of date and urgently needs change. Our tax reform package is about getting rid of wholesale sales tax and replacing it with a goods and services tax and also getting rid of a number of indirect state taxes that hinder business activity and jobs growth. Part of the reform also involves changing the interface between tax and our welfare system. The current structure—the structure that Labor had when they were in office and which we want to reform—causes poverty traps and provides disincentives for people to take up opportunities to reduce their welfare dependence. Commonwealth-state financial relations have become a mess. The tax reform package will also reform that area and provide the states with a guaranteed source of revenue as the economy grows to fulfil their responsibilities.I note that Senator Cook referred to a letter from Roxburgh Securities. I note that it was signed off by Mr Ken Helsby. Senator Cook was lauding this letter that he had received. I saw it myself. What Mr Helsby wants is to cut government spending in half. Does Labor support that? (Time expired)15:22:005160Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to speak on the motion to take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I want to take up a number of points that have been made in the chamber today. Senator Chapman talked about consultation—and this comes from a government that kept secret its negotiations and discussions over the tax package—EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—For 12 months.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is right, for 12 months the Australian public was kept in the dark. Then came the big glossy document that Senator Cook talked about. That document was put on the table and then the $20 million advertising campaign started. That was paid for by taxpayers—by everybody in this chamber and in the gallery—and what a trail of deceit it was. All the issues the government had tried to hide were exposed in the Senate inquiry. There was no modelling by Treasury. Why was no modelling ever done by Treasury? Because we know now that that modelling would not have supported a word that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country uttered during the election campaign. There will be no jobs boost, no drop in unemployment, no export boost, no increase in national savings and no growth in GDP. That is what the Senate inquiry showed. It exposed you absolutely red-handed, Senator Ferguson.Another example of the hypocrisy of the government is the issue of compliance costs. Earlier today Senator Hill talked about compliance costs. Senator Ferguson has even talked about how small business is lauding this package, but Rob Bastian, the Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA, said:" . . . small business operators now believe the GST would cost them. The exclusion of food introduces a major complexity in the tax system and for us the only reason we were copping a GST at the start was to try to produce simplicity," he told reporters. "If we excluded food, we sure would have to compensate the small business sector in some way."The recent Yellow Pages Small Business attitude survey, released just a couple of days ago, found that two-thirds of small businesses were unable to nominate a specific benefit for them, or they said that there was no benefit. Two-thirds of small businesses said there was no benefit, only extra costs.We have heard the argument that the government wanted to make it cheaper for small business. What did the inquiry show? It showed that at no point could it possibly be cheaper for any business because all the existing companies—the 70,000 currently in the WST system—would have their systems overtaken by the compliance costs of the GST, and those costs would be greater than the existing WST. That is something that New Zealand has just had to admit. For the other 1.6 million businesses to be dragged into the GST net, costs must go up. Why? Because any cost above zero is greater for them, and they are not paying any compliance costs on the WST.Today we have seen one of the most disgraceful performances of grovelling to the Democrats by the whole frontbench of the government. It absolutely gave meaning to this quote from the Courier-Mail, which Senator Bartlett may have seen on the weekend. The article was by Graham Lloyd and the headline said `Doing a deal with the Democrats'. It said:After treating Democrats leader Meg Lees like the ugly duckling at the school ball, the Liberals are now treating her like the queen of the prom.How true is that! How embarrassing a performance was it from the entire frontbench.Where are the Democrats at in this debate right now? Let us talk about the Democrats. Let us talk about core and non-core promises. Let us talk about the hypocrisy that the Democrats have been involved in. They lambasted this government over core and non-core promises, but what have we seen in the last week from the Democrats? We have seen first-tier promises and second-tier promises. It has been great. Core and non-core promises—we will hold you to that, Senator Bartlett.I have a couple of points to help you with your discussions in the party room. What about the members of the National Party and trusts—entity taxation? They are going to try to sink it. They are going to do everything they can behind the scenes to sink trusts being taxed as entities and corporations. That is what they are about. What have we talked about a mandate for? The Democrats love the mandate argument. Last time I counted, 38 per cent for that lot and eight per cent for you does not come to 50 per cent. (Time expired)EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—That was a long five minutes.15:27:005161Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—It was a long five minutes from Senator Conroy. He had so very little to say that he had to spin it out and make the few points that he wanted to make sound as though they had some substance when they were really all nonsense and hot air.Senator Cook made the comment that the Australian people want to have an election on tax reform. We won an election last October—and we won it handsomely—on the issue of tax reform. Senator Cook is dreaming if he thinks the Australian people would support the Australian Labor Party now on this issue. The Australian people—as did the ALP in the past—acknowledge the need for Australia to reform its taxation system. At the moment, the ALP is attacking the new tax proposals of the government but conveniently forgetting that, in the past, ALP spokesmen such as the previous Prime Minister Paul Keating had strongly spoken of the need to reform the tax system. They supported the need for a goods and services tax or some sort of indirect taxation system.The government, under the leadership of John Howard, took that issue to the people. It won the election in October very well on the issue of tax reform. It won the election because the Australian people understood that we need to change our tax system from a direct to an indirect system. They saw that the proposal that the Howard government was putting forward would lift the burden of personal taxation on most of the Australian population and give people more reward for their efforts.The government strongly believes that people should be rewarded for effort. We do not want to see people taxed out of their ability to provide for themselves and feeling that, no matter how hard they work, they are going to get very little back because the taxation system, which the Labor Party wants to continue and maintain, will rob them of most of their extra income.The tax system which we proposed, with a 10 per cent goods and services tax, was supported because it was seen as ending the vagueness of Labor's wholesale sales tax system which taxed all sorts of different items at different rates. People never knew what the real cost of things was and how much extra tax there was on an item. Under our system it will be a very simple and straightforward 10 per cent on all goods and services. People will know what the tax is and they will know where they stand. That is something the Australian people, in a majority decision, saw as benefiting the Australian community.The other reasons for people supporting our new tax proposal were that it would make Australia more competitive, it would boost the Australian economy and, in particular, it would make Australia a stronger nation in terms of export competitiveness. Another very important reason for Australian people supporting the tax proposal put forward by the Howard government was that it would provide an income stream to the states to fund state areas of responsibility like roads, hospitals and schools, which are so important to the Australian community. According to the state governments, these are the perceived needs of each state, without the interference of the federal government. We on this side of the Senate believe that the states have a very important role to play as regional governments. That was one of the strongest reasons for people supporting our tax proposals.We have a situation where the Australian people strongly supported our proposed taxation system. Unlike the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax system introduced in 1993, when taxes were put up in such an unprincipled manner and no compensation was paid to low income earners, our proposed taxation system will adequately compensate low income earners. The government, without any doubt, has a strong mandate to reform this system. If, in view of the current composition of the Senate, we have to negotiate with the Democrats to get it through, so be it. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.516210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:516216DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws attention to the potentially damaging effects of National Competition Policy on small business such as newsagents.Your petitioners ask the Senate in Parliament to call on the federal government to review the decisions of the Australian Consumer and Competition Tribunal which threaten the viability of newsagents and introduce legislation to override these decisions and preserve the current system of distribution for magazines and newspapers through Australian newsagents. Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 16 citizens)516311DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organismsSenator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 11 citizens)Petitions received.Notices516351635163Campbell, 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 following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999;Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 ;Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 ; andWool International Privatisation Bill 1999 .I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during the sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 AUTUMN SITTINGSFINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILLFINANCIAL SECTOR (TRANSFERS OF BUSINESS) BILLINCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (RSAs PROVIDED BY REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS) BILLPurposeThe Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill will provide for the implementation of the second stage of the Government's response to the Financial System Inquiry. It amends the Banking Act 1959, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Corporations Law to transfer responsibility for the prudential and corporate regulation of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies to the Commonwealth from the States and Territories. The Bill will include supplementary amendments to complement the reforms included in the first stage legislation. The Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill introduces provisions which facilitate the transfer of business between life companies or authorised deposit-taking institutions on either a voluntary or a compulsory basis. The Income Tax Rates (RSAs provided by Registered Organizations) Bill ensures appropriate tax treatment for RSA business of friendly societies and other registered organizations.Reason for PriorityThe Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers and Chief Ministers on 29 November 1998 to seek their support for a draft Financial Sector Regulations Transfer Agreement. The draft Agreement seeks to achieve the transfer by 1 July 1999. Industry groups are keen to progress the transfer of regulatory responsibility for the financial institutions as soon as possible so that a single prudential regulation scheme applies across the financial sector.Effect if bills are not dealt with in one SittingDelay in the passage of the Bills will delay the introduction and passage of the necessary State and Territory legislation to give effect to the regulatory transfer.A delay may also be to the competitive disadvantage of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies in relation to the other financial institutions, such as banks, superannuation funds and life insurance companies (which are covered under the Bills passed in the 1998 Autumn sittings to provide for the implementation of the first stage of the Government's response to the Financial System Inquiry). State and Territory governments may raise concerns in relation to the uncertainty created in relation to their continued regulation of these institutions.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE SENATEWOOL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATISATION BILL 1999PurposeThe purpose of the Bill is to amend the Wool International Act 1993 to convert Wool International from a statutory authority to a Corporations Law company from 1 July 1999.Reasons for urgencyThe former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy announced on 15 October that ownership and responsibility for management of the stockpile would be transferred to the private sector on 1 July 1999. Industry expectation that this will occur is very high.Failure to privatise the stockpile on or before 1 July 1999 would mean WI would resume sales from the stockpile, with a consequent renewal of the divisive industry debate about the sale schedule, and further calls for government intervention in stockpile sales. A renewal of this debate will further distract the industry from the real issues of lack of demand for wool products, the need for productivity improvements and the need to meet the quality requirements of our customers.The Bill needs to be passed as soon as possible to allow sufficient time for all activities required for the conversion of Wool International into a Corporations Law company, including the registration of the company with ASIC.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)Committees516451645164Motion (by Senator Coonan)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 be extended to 25 May 1999. 51645164Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 be extended to 25 May 1999.Leave of Absence5164Motion (by Senator Coonan)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted for the period 24 May to 28 May 1999, to Senators Denman, Knowles and MacGibbon on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business overseas, and to Senator Hutchins on account of ill health.Notices51645164Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 215 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to Kosovo refugees, postponed till 27 May 1999.General business notice of motion no. 218 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to Norfolk Island, postponed till 25 May 1999.General business notice of motion no. 220 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the establishment of an Australian Embassy in Zargreb, Croatia, postponed till 25 May 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 10 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 206 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to indigenous education, postponed till 25 May 1999.General business notice of motion no. 209 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Select Committee on Information Technologies, postponed till 25 May 1999. Documents51655165516510000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the Auditor-General's report No. 40 of 1998-99: Performance Audit—Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program: Assessment of Applicants.15:37:005165Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I rise to speak briefly to this report, which I recommend to the Senate. It is a complicated program that has been introduced. The aim of it is to compensate the pharmaceutical industry for agreeing to undertake certain activities in relation to production and pricing policies. The government is a monopsonist—so it controls the pricing of a range of goods—and it is worth while for people to have a look at this report.The $300 million that the government has put into this, however, is nowhere near enough. This is a system that replaces factor F, a very successful policy that was pursued by the previous Labor government in its term of office. Factor F has been recognised right across the country and right across the industry as a benefit to this country. The resources that flowed into the sector and the amount of research and development that was undertaken as a result of the former Labor government's policy stood the test of time and were roundly supported by industry over the years. Yes, there were some problems. Yes, it was possible for there to be improvements in the scheme that existed, but this government set back research and development in this area by years. We have seen that right across the country in all the different industries—the government have set about dumbing down this country. They have attempted on various occasions to disguise this deliberate strategy by arguing that we had this mythical black hole and that we had a need to balance all the competing interests in this country. But they did not want to talk about how little they were prepared to commit to research and development and schemes like factor F which they have now replaced.Some $300 million over five years is not enough. We have to be committed to making research and development the absolute key strategy. The government continually say that they are interested in trying to improve the standard of living of all Australians, but at the same time they make cuts in the areas which can value add and improve the lot of ordinary working people in this country. They talk about the need to have an export oriented country and say that we must grow through exports. This is something which I believe all parties in this country would support, but when you see the rebadging of programs that they have slashed, that they try to pretend are their own initiatives, that they try to pretend are improvements on the previous system, you tend to get a bit cynical about what it is they are saying.This audit report into the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program shows that there are many problems with this new government's rebadged, reduced and less funded policy. A number of the problems are highlighted in this report. There is a range of principles which the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to introduce, and I would like to just briefly mention four of them that are specifically referred to here. The first principle states:The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program is intended to increase the total level of research and development activity undertaken in Australia which has a direct link to or is of direct relevance to the pharmaceutical industry. It is not, however, intended to influence the direction of that research and development activity.Principle 2 states:The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program is intended to increase the total level of pharmaceutical production value added activity undertaken in Australia. In particular, it seeks to encourage high value adding per unit activity over lower value adding per unit activity.Principle 3 states:The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program is intended to encourage pharmaceutical companies to achieve not only growth in existing activity but also to undertake additional activity which is different in scope from existing activity, or is otherwise new to the company and of `significance' to its operations and/or its position in the global environment.Finally, principle 4 states:The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program is intended to encourage a sustainable pharmaceutical industry in Australia, undertaking activity which is internationally competitive and of benefit to Australia.Could anybody disagree with these principles? But, as I said earlier, what we have seen from this government is the reduction of funding for the industry policy that was previously known as factor F. Australia is the poorer and certainly not the wiser for having pursued this policy of pretending that you can just take a program, rebadge it, slash its funds and pretend it is a new initiative. It is very disappointing that this government has such a narrow-minded view of what is necessary to progress the industry, to progress this country and to ensure that our children live in a knowledge based society.The pharmaceutical industry is an industry which has enormous potential. Pharmaceuticals are needed all around the world at all stages. It is not like expenditure on them is discretionary. Even if you put a GST on them, people will still need them. Even if you put a GST on all of these, even if you burden the pharmaceutical industry with the outrageous compliance costs that the GST is proposing and with the increase in prices to customers, pharmaceuticals will still survive and they will still be produced in this country.The problem is that this country has a poor track record in producing research and development, and factor F was something that addressed that. We have seen with this report today a highlighting of this government's narrow-mindedness: a government that is more intent on deceiving Australian voters over the GST than on building for our future, building for education, building for training and building with research and development. How can we progress into value adding and the knowledge based society with such a government? I repeat principle 2:The Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program is intended to increase the total level of pharmaceutical production value added activity undertaken in Australia— there can be no more important principle that must be followed through and implemented—In particular, it seeks to encourage high value adding per unit activity over lower value adding per unit activity.This is what it is about. If this country wants to survive and if we want to maintain our living standards, what we must have is a government with some vision, a government that is not trapped in trying to pretend to the Australian people that it has a tax reform for the country. This government went to the last election not with a vision for this country but with a vision for a new tax. That was it, beginning and end—nothing to do with these sorts of principles and nothing to do with value adding in the pharmaceutical industry.This government stand condemned because they have been unable to drop the blinkers and say, `What do we have to do if we're going to be fair dinkum? Let us amend factor F, let us improve on factor F and let us put more funds into the areas that we can identify.' That is the sort of policy action that this government should have taken.We have seen Senator Minchin announcing that we are going to have more research and development into all sorts of different things, but under questioning in Senate estimates departmental officials admitted that there is actually less money in R&D at this moment in time. They talked about the ebbs and flows. What they did not want to mention was that at the moment we are in a bit of an ebb in research and development and we are down on projections. More money has gone into these sorts of programs but less money has actually been spent than last year. This is from a government that keeps trying to pretend it has an active industry policy. You have a minister whose personal commitment is to make sure that the government is as economically rationally dry as it can be. You have put him in charge of trying to look beyond the traditional economic rationalist blinkers and saying, `Programs like the factor F or the Pharmaceutical Industry Investment Program are the sorts of programs that we should actually be supporting.' (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.5167516710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the Auditor-General's report No. 41 of 1998-99: Performance Audit—General Service Vehicle Fleet: Department of Defence15:47:005167Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.As would be known, as a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee I have participated in a number of estimates hearings and have drawn to the attention of the Department of Defence on a number of occasions the outcome of ANAO reports. As a matter of fact, I think I have been described as fairly rigorous in my approach to the reports. Nonetheless, when it was drawn to my attention that report No. 41 of 1998-99 was on the Notice Paper today, I thought it was well and truly worth saying a few words about it.The Department of Defence is currently undergoing massive change through the Defence Reform Program, which is seeking to shift resources from the blunt end to the sharp end. This particular ANAO report is focused not on that sharp end but on the large general service vehicle fleet that is operated by the defence service. The report draws attention to the fact that the fleet comprises some 6,350 motor vehicles, together with 3,100 trailers and 450 motorcycles. It estimated that the replacement value of the fleet was over $1 billion and had an annual maintenance cost in excess of $60 million. So efficiencies that can be gained in this area are undoubtedly going to contribute substantially to the reallocation of resources under the Defence Reform Program from the blunt end to the sharp end. I note that the report concentrated pretty much on Army, Army being the predominant user of general service vehicles with Air Force operating less than three per cent of the defence general service fleet. So much of the report is written from that perspective. When one looks at the substantial costs involved one can see the necessity for efficiencies to be achieved through the report's recommendations. In the report the surprising point to me was the fact that the trailer fleet has substantial deficiencies in numbers when compared with the approved establishment. The report states:As well, most trailer variants are between 27 and 40 years old.One would expect that that is well and truly past the extended life of any vehicle. There is specific reference made to that in some of the recommendations, which I will address later on. This raises a number of safety issues. Last year, unfortunately and quite tragically, a young school cadet was involved in an accident that occurred in a defence vehicle. Whilst that matter is still before the courts I will not comment on that particular issue as such but, nonetheless, it highlights the need for safety in this area. The report says:Actions proposed in 1992 to resolve trailer capability deficiencies have yet to be addressed.I think that is quite remiss. It is seven years since this issue was first addressed. It is an issue that really should have been taken into account in that period of time.The report went on to discuss the life-of-type modelling which can be used to predict the cost-effective life of a fleet. In looking at that concept, the report strongly urged the need for improved information systems to support vehicle fleet management and life-of-type decisions but also considered that Defence should be pursuing other sources of information to enable early decisions to be made on the life-of-type of existing vehicle fleets.One of the things I found from pursuing through estimates last year was that there seemed to be no common inventory throughout Defence. I understand that Defence is getting a common inventory together and, therefore, it will know of the need for replacement of these vehicles and be able to put in place a successful life-of-type modelling.The life cycle costing—and this is where real economic efficiencies are to be made—is a technique for estimating the total cost of ownership of an asset over its lifetime, and one would hope that will become more prevalent now that we have access to accrual accounting. This is a means of determining when it is best to replace the vehicle in question. As outlined in my early remarks, the Defence Force has a substantial number of motor vehicles, trailers and motorcycles which need to be replaced so that optimum cost effectiveness can be gained as a result of their replacement.The ANAO, in its report, noted that the current limitations on implementing life cycle costing, which is part of any purchasing program under government guidelines for defence general service vehicle fleets, includes the inadequacy of current data holdings, the failure to develop appropriate life cycle costing models and the cost associated with their introduction. So what we see the ANAO basically referring to in this report are some major deficiencies in Defence in respect of something that just cannot be scoffed at in financial terms; we are looking at an investment of over $1 billion and a maintenance cost of $60 million per annum. So, whilst it is not the sexy issue at the bright end of town, it certainly is an important issue for Defence to get right so that efficiencies can be achieved and we can shift resources from the blunt end to the sharp end.The report goes on to note that, as a general rule, general service vehicles have an estimated life of 15 years. Point 15 of the key findings on page 13 noted that `most trailer variants are between 27 and 40 years old'. Even with the expected extension of life from 15 years to 30 years, that leaves a substantial amount to be desired in terms of making sure that funds that are available within Defence are used wisely in this area.I note that the report made some 15 recommendations. As in most instances in my experience with Defence, it has agreed with all the recommendations. Of course, the proof of the pudding with Defence on many occasions is for the recommendations, having been agreed to, to be implemented. I will not hold my breath, having already noticed, as I have said, that, in respect of the trailer fleet, actions proposed back in 1992 are yet to be undertaken. This concerns an important and key issue of safety. Many of these vehicles, whilst being used off road, are used in the main for transporting Army personnel and Army supplies across Australia. So the maintenance and timely replacement of these vehicles is important indeed. I hope that the Department of Defence is serious in taking note of the recommendations of the ANAO report and implements them to enable us to have a more up-to-date, more efficient, more effective and safer fleet to transport our forces throughout Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous5168516810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present corrigenda to the Department of Senate portfolio budget statements.Committees51685168516815:58:005168Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Brownhill, I present the first report of 1999 of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, being the committee's annual report for 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.51685168The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Gibson replace Senator Ferguson for 7 and 8 June 1999, and Senator Parer replace Senator Ferguson on 9 and 10 June 1999, on the Economics Legislation Committee.Bills5169r770Billsr7735169Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.516915:59:005169Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (NO.2) 1999This bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 by introducing a new reporting scheme for high volume low value cargo arriving in Australia.All cargo arriving in Australia is required to be reported under the Customs Act.It is basic to Customs' ability to fulfil its border protection responsibilities that people transporting cargo to Australia report to Customs the details of the cargo intended to be discharged here.Customs is then able to screen the cargo report to protect the Australian community from the importation of illicit drugs and prohibited goods.This bill deals with a particular type of cargo, which is referred to as high volume low value cargo.It covers bulk consignments of documents and consolidated mail orders which are valued at less than $250 per consignment and which are transported to Australia by specialist operators such as express couriers.This sector of the transport industry has grown dramatically, with some 120,000 consignments arriving each week at Sydney Airport alone.The current reporting provisions do not work effectively for high volume low value consignments simply because of the large volume of such consignments entering the country.This results in many of these consignments not being properly reported.Consequently, Customs has not been able to screen the consignments as effectively as it would like, despite the fact that these types of consignments are known to harbour illicit drugs.The High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme proposed by this bill would enable high volume low value consignments to be properly reported.The Scheme will utilise electronic technology to enable the people reporting such consignments to provide Customs with access to their internal electronic data bases so that Customs may electronically screen the details of each consignment.To perform this screening task, Customs is currently developing the Advanced Cargo Profiling System.The System is being developed at a cost of $2.8 million under the Government's National Illicit Drug Strategy.This bill proposes to make the Scheme available to all people reporting such consignments whether they arrive by air or sea.This bill will, therefore, enable Customs to perform its screening responsibilities more effectively.At the same time, this bill will provide arrangements for industry to more efficiently and properly report high volume low value cargo.The Senate should note that further changes to the reporting arrangements will be necessary in the future as Customs updates its processing requirements as part of the continuing streamlining and reform of international trade.IMPORT PROCESSING CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL 1999This bill proposes to amend the Import Processing Charges Act 1997, by introducing a new screening charge in relation to cargo reported under the High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme outlined in Customs Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999.The screening charge was introduced in 1997 as a cost recovery measure and is charged on each air cargo consignment valued at less than $250.Such a consignment must be reported to Customs, although it does not require a Customs entry.This bill proposes to introduce a reduced screening charge for people who are eligible to join the High Volume Low Value Reporting Scheme.At present, people reporting high volume low value consignments pay $2.40 for each consignment.However, under the Scheme, such people will pay an amount of $45 for each bulk consignment which has been put together by the people transporting the consignments to Australia.This option is available for two types of consignments. Documents, such as courier mail, legal documents and intra company correspondence is one type.The other is mail order consignments.In both types, the people reporting the cargo are to ensure that each consignment does not exceed $250 in value and that the Customs duty and sales tax payable does not exceed $50.Because of these restrictions, such consignments will pose a low revenue risk to Customs.Therefore, Customs will not have to devote the same amount of resources to screening these consignments compared to consignments reported outside the Scheme.These savings in resources are reflected in the difference between the bulk consignment screening charge and the individual consignment screening charge.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills5170r800Billsr7995170Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.517016:00:005170Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) BILL 1999This Government recognises the integral role the family plays in Australian society. This Government wants to improve the assistance that families can get through the tax and social security systems.This bill, which forms part of the fundamental reform of the Australian tax system, introduces total reform and improvements to the assistance currently provided by Government to families. The reforms will significantly simplify 12 conflicting, overlapping different payments into three well designed, harmonised and generous benefits which will make a positive impact on the living standards of Australian households, particularly those with low incomes.In the last Parliament, the Government legislated to introduce the family tax initiative, which gave the main income earners of families with children a higher tax-free threshold. This was promised before the 1996 election and it was delivered in full, on time, in our first budget.Before the 1998 federal election the Government pledged, as part of the new tax system, to extend the family tax initiative—in fact, to double it. The Government now seeks to implement this measure in full, on time, and on budget.The measures already before the Parliament in the A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 and in the A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998, both of which were introduced in December last year, provide the doubling of the family tax initiative from 1 July 2000. On the social security side they provide an increase in assistance of $140 a year for each dependent child and, in addition to this, an extra $350 a year for single income families with a child under five years of age.This bill now takes those measures and incorporates them into the largest reform of family assistance yet done. It introduces higher levels of child-care assistance and puts all tax and social security measures for families into a greatly simplified structure of assistance. This bill is all about providing those higher levels of family assistance in a simpler and comprehensive structure. One of the main benefits of this is that no longer will a family be penalised if they make the wrong choice as to how to receive family assistance—either through the tax system or through the social security system. This bill provides that all families will receive the same level of maximum assistance. One set of rules will apply to all.This simplified structure will be delivered through a new body. Families will deal with, and be helped by, the new Family Assistance Office. Simplification of Structure of Family AssistanceThere is an obvious need to address the complexity in the current assistance provided to families.At present, there is an array of forms of assistance, yet many of those forms have virtually the same objectives. It is little wonder that families often require professional advisers to guide them through a maze of different and complex eligibility criteria, different income tests and definitions of income and different delivery mechanisms simply to obtain assistance.The aim of the Government is to simplify the structure and delivery of assistance for families.The new structure will reduce the types of assistance for families through the tax and social security systems from 12 to three. The three new payment types will be family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. Family tax benefit part A will provide assistance to families with dependent children. Family tax benefit part B will provide assistance to single income families—although the primary carer will be allowed to earn some income. Child-care benefit will provide assistance for the cost of child care.Family Tax Benefit Part ATurning to the first payment, family tax benefit part A will replace four existing payments. It will replace family allowance—both minimum rate family allowance and the more than minimum rate family allowance; family tax payment part A; and family tax assistance part A.Family tax benefit part A will have the same minimum and maximum rates as the payments it replaces but with the increased levels of assistance provided for under the legislation introduced last year; that is, an extra $140 a year for each dependent child. Extra assistance for large families will be retained. The maximum rate of family tax benefit part A will have a relaxed income test threshold of $28,200 (compared with a threshold of $24,350 a year if the payments it replaces were to continue). The minimum rate of family tax benefit part A will have a relaxed income test threshold of $73,000 a year (plus $3,000 a year for each child after the first).Family tax benefit part A, both the minimum and maximum rates, will have a reduced taper rate of 30 per cent (compared with a taper rate of 50 per cent which applies to the payments it will replace).Family tax benefit part A will not be subject to an assets test and will be indexed each July in line with movements in the consumer price index. It will not be taxable.Following the Government's announcement in the 1999 Budget, family tax benefit part A will be available in respect of young people aged 18 to under 21 years. Family Tax Benefit Part BThe second payment, family tax benefit part B, will replace six existing payments which provide assistance to single income families. Family tax benefit part B will replace the dependent spouse rebate (with child rate), the sole parent rebate, family tax assistance part B, basic parenting payment, guardian allowance and family tax payment part B.Family tax benefit part B will have a similar structure to the current system—where the level of assistance is higher with the youngest child being aged less than five years—but with the increased levels of assistance as provided for under the legislation introduced in December last year; that is, family tax benefit part B will provide an additional $350 a year for single income families, including lone parents, with a child under five years of age, and an additional $61 a year where the youngest child is aged over five years.The income test on a non-working partner's income will provide for a free area of $1,616 a year and a 30 per cent taper rate. The cut-out point for assistance will rise from $6,090 a year to around $10,500 a year for a family with a child aged under five years. This will greatly improve incentives for primary carers to seek paid work or maintain contact with the work force, should they wish to do so. Furthermore, the income test that currently applies for family tax initiative part B on the working partner's, or lone parent's, income will be abolished.Family tax benefit part B, like family tax benefit part A, will be indexed each July in line with movements in the consumer price index. It will not be taxable.Child-care benefitThe third payment, child-care benefit, will replace the two forms of assistance currently available to help families with the costs of child care outside the home.Child-care benefit will provide maximum assistance—for 50 hours of work related care per week—of at least $120 a week per child in formal care, with an additional $11 a week loading where there are two children in care and $32 a week loading for three or more children in care. Where part-time formal care of less than 33 hours a week is used, these rates will be 10 per cent higher. For informal work related care, the maximum level of assistance will be $20.10 a week per child in care (for 50 hours of care).The taper rates will vary depending on the number of children and the level of family income. For families with one child in care, a taper rate of 10 per cent will apply. For families with two children in care, a taper rate of 15 per cent will apply for those with incomes up to $66,000 a year and a taper rate of 25 per cent will apply above that. For families with three or more children in care, a taper rate of 15 per cent will apply for those with incomes up to $66,000 a year, and a taper rate of 35 per cent will apply above that.The income test will not apply for incomes above $81,000 a year for families with one child in care. This will, on average, maintain entitlements to assistance—equivalent to that currently available under the child-care cash rebate at the 20 per cent rate—for higher income families.The new child-care benefit will provide an increase in the maximum level of assistance of $7.50 a week for people paying average fees for 50 hours of care in a long day care service. These reforms will be of particular benefit to 200,000 lower income families who receive the maximum level of assistance.Family Assistance OfficeThe new, simplified system of family assistance arising out of this bill will be delivered by a new Family Assistance Office. The Family Assistance Office will utilise existing service delivery networks of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency, Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission and will specialise in delivering assistance to families. It will enable families to deal with just one agency and one set of rules.Fringe Benefits TaxFinally, this bill also ensures, as part of the Government's reforms of the fringe benefits tax provisions, that for the purposes of the income tests for family assistance, the non-grossed up value of a person's fringe benefits will be used in determining the amount of family assistance payable.Further LegislationIn addition to this bill, and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999, further legislation dealing with the administration of family assistance and other consequential amendments will be introduced shortly.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL (NO. 1) 1999I have just introduced a bill, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, to provide for the simplification of the structure and administration of family assistance from 1 July 2000.Twelve forms of assistance, currently available under the tax and social security systems, will be reduced to three. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 repeals the twelve current forms of family assistance. These are: Family Allowance (including minimum Family Allowance, more than minimum rate Family Allowance), Guardian Allowance, Family Tax Payment Parts A and B, Family Tax Assistance Parts A and B, Basic Parenting Payment, Dependent Spouse Rebate (with children), Sole Parent Rebate, Childcare Cash Rebate and Child Care Assistance.The three new, simpler family payments—of Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B and Child Care Benefit—will be available to families under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999.As part of the restructuring of family payments, Maternity Allowance and Maternity Immunisation Allowance will be moved from the Social Security Act 1991 into the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999. In this way, all family related payments will be located in one Act. This Bill makes consequential amendments to repeal those provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 that provide for the payment of Maternity Allowance and Maternity Immunisation Allowance.This Bill also provides for the introduction of revised income test tapering arrangements for Parenting Payment recipients who are members of a couple. Specifically, the range of income at which the taper rate of 50 per cent applies to Parenting Payment for a couple family with dependent children will be extended in July 2000 from $142 to $245 per fortnight, an increase of more than $100. This measure is consistent with improving work incentives for low and middle income families.This income test is more generous than the one outlined in the Government's tax policy `A New Tax System'. The Government has decided to extend the income test to ensure that benefits delivered in this area are as great as those foreshadowed in the policy. If it had done so, some dual income families at the higher end of the income range—whilst benefiting from tax reform—would not have benefited to the extent foreshadowed. On the other hand, dual income families at the lower end of the income scale benefit much greater than foreshadowed.By amending the income test, those at the higher end receive the benefits foreshadowed and those at the lower end will still receive additional benefits over and above those foreshadowed in `A New Tax System'. The cost of this measure is around $100 million per annum.This Bill also ensures, as part of the Government's reforms of fringe benefits tax provisions, that for the purposes of the parental means test for youth allowance, the non-grossed up value of a person's fringe benefits will be used in determining whether youth allowance is payable.I commend the Bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the winter sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.Miscellaneous517316:01:005173Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 40 and made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 , be disallowed.In moving this disallowance motion jointly with Senator Allison, I would like the Senate to know that we have not taken this action lightly. We are acting in response to representations from within the disabilities sector—representations from the people who will be affected and their peak organisations. It is clear that there are specific problems in the adverse outcomes for individuals. There are general problems with the principle of limiting access to discrimination redress and there are problems with process, particularly in the way the exemptions were brought in without any consultation with affected groups.We believe there are too many problems for the exemptions to be allowed to stand. The case for disallowance has been very thoroughly put by the Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition, in conjunction with the National Council on Intellectual Disability, in a notice to senators dated 9 April 1999. Rather than reiterate the points made in that document, I seek leave to table the document and make some more general remarks.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I thank the Senate. The first point to be made is that the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) have the potential to undermine the intention and the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act. The objects of the act are: firstly, to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability; secondly, to ensure, as far as practicable, equality before the law; and, thirdly, to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.The amended regulations run counter to all three objects of the act. They exempt certain acts and regulations in South Australia and New South Wales from coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act. These acts and regulations become prescribed laws as allowed by section 47 of the act. Section 47 says that if a person acts in direct compliance with a prescribed law, their actions cannot be unlawful discrimination. So, when a person discriminates against someone with a disability, if they can show that what they are doing is something that was required by a prescribed act, a complaint of discrimination will be unsuccessful.Let us look at the object of the act: elimination of discrimination in a number of areas. The areas specifically include work, education, provision of services, and existing laws. Yet the prescribed laws cover those very areas. Industrial and employee relations, general regulations and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act obviously deal with work; the education act deals with education. It cannot be held that these are laws which incidentally discriminate but do so for some higher purpose. These are laws which quite specifically deal with the core issues referred to in the objects of the act. If these laws are discriminatory, then it is these laws which should be changed.Other laws and regulations the government wants to prescribe fall into the existing laws category and all of them potentially relate in some way—albeit indirectly—to provision of services. Once again, if they are discriminatory they should be changed, not exempted from the Disability Discrimination Act. The South Australian lobby group, Disability Action, have a very good point to make on this issue when they say:It is absolutely essential that all of Australia's laws should express human rights values and be judged against those values. The DDA—that is, the Disability Discrimination Act—puts human rights values into law. It is an expression of Australia's commitment to several international conventions which it has ratified. The laws which are proposed for exemption were made for other purposes and reflect other values. Surely a good way to find out if a law is just is to let it stand the test of examination against laws designed to prevent discrimination. Does the state government hold the fear that its laws are discriminatory or that they might be administered in a discriminatory way? We think they must.By way of an aside, I have some doubt in my mind about whether actions taken in direct compliance with these laws would be found to be discriminatory under the act anyway. The act is not as strong as it could be, and it has its own qualifications and exemptions. For example, the phrase `this section does not render it unlawful to discriminate if it would otherwise impose unjustifiable hardship' is used repeatedly throughout the act. That applies to educational authorities, it applies to employment, it applies to access, and it applies to provision of services—that sufficient exemption should be extended to anything done in direct compliance with the prescribed laws.Let us look at some of the process issues. The most blatant abuse of process in this matter would have to be the lack of consultation with disabled people and their representatives. This is not new for this government, but here we go again. This runs totally counter to commitments given by the government to the disabled. The Minister for Community Services, Mr Warren Truss, in giving the closing address at the ACROD Convention in Cairns in November last year, said:Effective communication between the Government and the community is essential to delivering good policy.Yes, we can only agree. He said:We share the same goal—to give people with a disability the opportunity to enjoy, and take part more fully, in Australia's economic and social life.He did not go on to say `except where it conflicts with discriminatory state legislation'. Perhaps someone should suggest to the Attorney-General that he take heed of his colleague's commitments and put them into practice in his own portfolio.It is not just the Attorney-General who has failed to seek the views of the community. When the community found out what he was doing and tried to find out what was behind these moves they were denied—and still are denied—access to key documents which would explain why the state government sought these exemptions in the first place. Freedom of information requests have languished and have been subjected to delay after delay. Even a request from my office to the Attorney-General's office did not lead to any movement on that front. When my office raised the issue of consultation, we were told quite bluntly that the act does not require consultation. Maybe the act does not, but consultation is good government; so good government does require consultation.Who are the people who would be adversely affected by these laws being prescribed? One group is the parents who are trying to get their children into mainstream education. Sure, there is a limit to the extent to which we can expect schools to cope with a range of disabilities, but the Disability Discrimination Act recognises that. As I mentioned earlier, it does allow exemption where adjustments would cause unjustifiable hardship.Cases brought to our attention have involved clear discrimination where minimal disruption to the school would have occurred. Perhaps the most blatant example we have been told about is of a child with short arms being excluded from school on the grounds that it would have taken her longer to get dressed after swimming lessons. Exempting the education act from the Disability Discrimination Act smacks of attempts to avoid schools having to make any accommodation for students with disabilities. This might be good from the point of view of economic rationalism and cost cutting, but is it good legislation? This is against everyone's interests, we believe. There is plenty of evidence to indicate the benefits of accommodating difference within the mainstream system to the child with disabilities and to the school communityAnother example I will use to illustrate the need for disallowance relates to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The relevant part of the act treats people with a psychiatric disability differently from people who have a physical disability. It changes the prerequisite conditions for compensation. It has very worrying implications for people who develop psychiatric disabilities as a result of their employment. Exempting the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act compounds the seriousness of these implications for whole classes of injured workers. Why should psychological injury be treated any differently from any other injury incurred at work? Clearly it can have just as debilitating an effect as physical injury. If laws rule out claims for psychological injury on a different basis from other injury, then they are discriminatory and should be open to challenge under the Disability Discrimination Act.Workers in sheltered workshops are another group who stand to be disadvantaged. Why shouldn't they be covered by regulations which apply to other workers? They should be able to be covered by awards. Such awards could reflect the special circumstances of sheltered workshops without being discriminatory. Excluding them from the regulations is an open invitation to discrimination and exploitation. It should also be remembered that many of these sheltered workshops receive Commonwealth funding, and it is incumbent on the Commonwealth to ensure that employees are covered by appropriate wages and conditions. It is wrong for the government to leave the door open for discrimination against this class of workers. Are they expecting perhaps that disabled workers may, as a group of people or as individuals, be able to negotiate for each of their different working contracts?There are those who could be affected by exempting the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. Obviously if people are unfit to drive there have to be ways of imposing restrictions. This is not in dispute. It is when actions are taken as a result of unrelated disabilities that problems arise. For example, a person in a wheelchair goes in to get a renewal of their disabled parking sticker and the overzealous clerk behind the counter insists on the person resitting a driving test: this is potentially an action which could cause considerable incon venience and cost. It is also discriminatory. If this disallowance is unsuccessful, that person would have no recourse under the Disability Discrimination Act. This was not a hypothetical case; it was based on an actual incident. Fortunately the person involved was a staunch advocate of the rights of people with disabilities, and the problem was resolved at the counter. Others without that sort of background and confidence may not be so lucky. If they suffer discriminatory treatment, they are, and should be, entitled to recourse.To sum up, these regulations are misguided in their intent and discriminatory in their impact. They were promulgated without consultation with the very people most affected, quite against the words of the minister. They are vehemently opposed by the main representative bodies in the disabilities area, and they deserve to be opposed by the Senate. I seek assistance from the Senate in disallowing these regulations.16:13:005175Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I have pleasure in indicating to Senator Margetts that the Australian Labor Party will be supporting the disallowance of these disability discrimination amendment regulations. These regulations prescribe provisions under eight separate state acts and regulations for the purposes of subsection 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The effect of a prescription under subsection 47(2) is to exempt any act performed in direct compliance with those provisions from the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Subsection 47(2) was included in the Disability Discrimination Act at the time of its enactment to allow states or territories to continue to act in direct compliance with laws which might otherwise breach the principles underlying the Disability Discrimination Act but which were needed for reasons of good public policy.When the Disability Discrimination Act initially came into force, all acts performed under existing Commonwealth, state and territory laws were exempted from the operation of the act for a period of three years. The purpose of this provision was to allow the Commonwealth, states and territories time in which either to modify their laws, where appropriate, to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act or to seek prescription under subsection 47(2). The three years expired on 30 June 1995.The Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1) seek to prescribe the following acts and regulations, from New South Wales: the Mental Health Act 1990; the Mental Health Regulations 1995; and the Motor Traffic Regulations 1935, clauses 10(1)(c) and 11. The regulations seek to prescribe, from South Australia: the Firearms Act 1997, sections 20 and 20A; the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, sections 88 and 148; the Education Act 1972, sections 75(3) and 75A; the Industrial and Employee Relations (General) Regulations 1994, regulation 11; and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986, sections 30A and schedule 3.The call to disallow these regulations has come from various disability groups who are concerned that there has been absolutely no consultation on the policy decisions underpinning these regulations by the Commonwealth Attorney-General or the New South Wales and South Australian state governments. This is clearly not satisfactory. The Australian disability community and the people it represents are entitled to be consulted, like any other group in society, about changes that will seriously affect their ability to pursue the rights to be free of inappropriate discrimination.The federal parliamentary Labor Party is particularly concerned that the Commonwealth Attorney-General engaged in no such consultation. In discussions between the Labor Party and the government, the Attorney's office indicated that they do not regard it as the Commonwealth's responsibility to consult on these matters. In Labor's view, that is a total abrogation of the responsibility that the Attorney has to administer the laws he controls. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to simply fob off this responsibility to the states and territories. The Disability Discrimination Act is a Commonwealth act that implements Australia's international legal obligations to protect the rights of one of the most vulnerable groups in our society: those living with a disability.Regardless of any responsibility that the relevant state governments may have had to consult on this issue, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, as administrator of this act, had the primary responsibility to ensure that appropriate consultations took place. No satisfactory reason has been given by the Attorney as to why he failed to engage in consultation. But given that resources within the Attorney's own department for human rights issues, including disability discrimination issues, have been slashed, I suspect that we do not have to look too far to determine the answer.Even since the making of these regulations, the Attorney has refused to meet with representatives of the disability community to discuss the issues they raise. Other than citing the pressure of time, the Attorney has given no reason for his refusal to meet with these groups. Given that these regulations have been on the drawing board for nearly four years, that is clearly unacceptable. In fact, it is only through the consultative processes that the Labor Party has established to consider the merit of these regulations that any substantive communication has occurred. While that communication has been indirect, Labor has been in a position to determine the rationale behind the government's decision to prescribe the relevant acts and regulations.Unlike the government, the opposition have not sought to make a decision about these matters lightly. We have gone out of our way to seek the views of the Commonwealth and state governments as well as the disability community. After lengthy deliberation and consideration, we have decided that, at this time, these regulations should be disallowed. If these regulations had suffered from a mere lack of consultation but were otherwise sound, the opposition would not have supported this disallowance motion. However, we have grave concerns about the possible operation of some of the regulations, which we believe need to be resolved before we would be prepared to allow them to pass.For the record, Labor do not at this stage have substantial concerns about the moves to prescribe clauses 10(1)(c) and 11 of the New South Wales Motor Traffic Regulations, sections 20 and 20A of the South Australian Firearms Act and sections 88 and 148 of the South Australian Motor Vehicles Act. If these provisions had been prescribed separately from the others, Labor would probably not have opposed them. However, as a result of the advice that we have received from the Clerk of the Senate, Labor realise that we do not have the discretion to isolate these provisions from the disallowance motion.I know that Labor's decision to effectively disallow the prescription of these provisions may provide a temptation to an irresponsible government to suggest that Labor's support for this motion may endanger the lives of ordinary Australians. That would of course be dishonest in the extreme. Labor has consistently shown that it supports measures designed to protect the Australian community and believes in tough but fair licensing regimes for both firearms and motor vehicles.In reality, all these sections do is seek to avoid any doubt that the relevant authorities have the power to refuse to issue a licence to people who are unfit by reason of their disability to hold either a motor vehicle or firearm licence. These laws have been operating subject to the Disability Discrimination Act for almost four years. There are as yet no reported cases of any person seeking to use the Disability Discrimination Act to acquire a licence in circumstances where good public policy means that they should not be granted one.Even if someone challenged a decision today, the review process would take a considerable period of time before the relevant person was granted a licence. Given that the Commonwealth would be free to prescribe these provisions again in six months time—well before any review process would be completed—there is no risk to any member of the Australian community. If such a case were on foot in six months time, I can give an assurance that Labor would support the prescription of these provisions at that time to avoid any doubt that members of the Australian community might be at risk. That said, if these regulations are disallowed, Labor would ask the Commonwealth to consult with the disability community on the appropriateness of their prescription, as should have occurred in the first place.The other acts and regulations for which prescription is proposed raise more complex issues. The simplest of these relates to the New South Wales Mental Health Act and regulations. The disability community advises me that it is not opposed to the prescription of parts of the New South Wales act and regulations per se; rather, it is concerned at the breadth of the prescription which it believes may have unintended consequences.These are the sorts of matters that could easily have been resolved by negotiation if the Attorney-General had done his job properly. Accordingly, if these regulations are disallowed, the Labor Party calls on the Attorney-General to consult with the disability community and the New South Wales government to determine whether the scope of this prescription can be confined.I turn to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Section 30A and schedule 3 of the South Australian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 seek to deny compensation to people who suffer mental disorders, such as stress or anxiety, because they are lawfully disciplined, demoted or dismissed by their employer, because they are not promoted as they had hoped or are not entitled to be paid workers compensation. A similar limitation on the payment of compensation exists under section 6 of the Commonwealth's Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. However, the Commonwealth's exemption is more general in nature, not being limited to so-called mental disorders and potentially applying to physical injuries also.This limitation arose out of widespread community concern about fraudulent claims for compensation by those who were legitimately the subject of disciplinary action. While the Labor Party is concerned about the discrimination inherent in the South Australian provisions between types of disability, because we do not object to the limitation on compensation contained in the South Australian legislation, we would not otherwise oppose the prescription of these provisions. However, Labor would encourage the South Australian government to address the issue raised, if this matter is brought back before the parliament, and would also encourage the Attorney to consult with the disability community more broadly on its appropriateness.The two provisions the prescription of which gives rise to the greatest concern from the opposition's point of view both arise under South Australian law. They are sections 75(3) and 75A of the Education Act 1972—I know that my colleague Senator Quirke has some serious concerns about those—and regulation 11 of the Industrial Relations (General) Regulations 1994. Firstly, I turn to the Education Act. In short, the relevant provisions of the Education Act give the South Australian authorities the power to determine whether a child with a disability will attend their local school or whether the child should be sent to a school that can cater specifically for that child's needs. I am advised that only 800 of the approximately 10,000 children enrolled in South Australian public school systems attend special schools. Nonetheless, everyone in this chamber will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed by some parents where their child has been forced, against their wishes, to attend a special school.These are not easy cases. There are, no doubt, some cases where it is simply not feasible for the child to attend their local school because of the considerable cost in providing them with the appropriate services and care. In an age of limited education budgets, the disproportionate allocation of resources to enable such a child to attend their local school may be outweighed by the ready availability of an alternative special school. But cost or inconvenience is all too often used as an excuse to prevent people living with disabilities to have access to the same rights and services that they should be entitled to enjoy. That is why the Commonwealth, in partnership with the states and territories, has sought to develop a disability standard under paragraph 31(1)(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act to deal with these issues. Disability standards otherwise displace the operation of the Disability Discri mination Act and become enforceable in their own right.The disability community is understandably concerned that the prescription of these provisions of the South Australian Education Act pre-empt the development of a disability standard by removing the need for the South Australian government to negotiate about its content. On that I agree. In so saying, I note that the Attorney's office has argued that the development of a disability standard pursuant to section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act has the effect of overriding any prescription under section 47(2). However, that provision only has effect if a disability standard exists. Accordingly, the opposition cannot support, at this time, the prescription of this provision.The South Australian government has also sought the prescription of regulation 11 of the Industrial and Employee Relations (General) Regulations 1994. Regulation 11 seeks to maintain the practice of employing the people employed in sheltered workshops on less than award wages. I would be surprised if there is a single member of this parliament who does not acknowledge the good work done by the vast majority of the providers of sheltered workshops. These institutions play a vital role in providing people living with disabilities with skills, training, social contact, support and income. I was fortunate to visit, only recently, Active's centres in Western Australia and I observed the excellent work they do in providing support to their clients.The South Australian government has argued that regulation 11 must be prescribed because, without it, sheltered workshops will become commercially unsustainable and will be forced to close. Such an alarmist tone is clearly unhelpful. I note that this has not occurred in the almost four years in which the Disability Discrimination Act has applied to these regulations. In 1992, this parliament endorsed the disability service standards. The standards were developed to assist service providers funded under the Disability Services Act 1986 to meet the principles and objectives of the act. In particular, the standard on employment conditions included a requirement at clause 9.10 that:. . . the agency ensure that each employee is employed under an award or industrial agreement.In the 1995 review of the Commonwealth's Disability Services program entitled Working solution it was recommended that:By June 1996, all DSP-funded services should be paying employees under an award or certified agreement and should be paying at least pro-rata award wages consistent with the principles of the Supported Wages System.The report noted:No valid reason has been presented to the Reviewers as to why all services should not pay at least pro-rata award wages for all employees.The 1997 Department of Health and Family Services report entitled Evaluation of the barriers to the implementation of the disability services standards , prepared by Services Quality Australia, stated:Unfair wages and employment conditions are a major issue for people using business services/sheltered employment. This treatment fails to meet either the spirit of the Standards or their requirements. Consumers consider that this is discriminating and unfair.What these reports show is that the best way to protect the employment of people working in sheltered workshops is by means of direct subsidy to the place of employment, where that is required, not through an indiscriminate indirect subsidy occasioned by the slashing of wages. Such an approach accords with good economic efficiency and competitive neutrality principles. More importantly, it is inappropriate in 1999 that people living with disabilities should be paid substandard wages just to maintain their employment. They are entitled to the same minimum terms and conditions of employment as other Australians.In these circumstances I find the Attorney's decision to prescribe regulation 11 disturbing and unacceptable. Rather than seeking to compel the South Australian government to comply with the spirit of the disability services standard, the Attorney has given them an easy way out. There are better ways of protecting the employment of people in sheltered workshops. Rather than compound discrimination against those living with a disability, the Attorney should insist that those Australians receive the protection they deserve. In conclusion, I regret that the only way to deal with the deficiencies in these regulations is to disallow them. I accept that is a blunt instrument. I suspect that many of the problems that I refer to would have been alleviated if the Attorney-General had not shirked his responsibilities and had consulted more widely on them. The opposition trusts that the Attorney-General will, if these regulations are disallowed, engage in that consultation before re-presenting some or all of these provisions for prescription in six months time. We also encourage the Attorney-General to present the regulations in a way that will allow the Senate to disallow the prescription of specific provisions. As I have previously indicated, had that been the case the opposition may have been prepared to allow some of these provisions presently before us to pass.Finally, I thank the disability community for their patience while the Labor Party determined its position on these matters. While I know that many will not agree with all the comments that I have made on behalf of the opposition today, I trust that they will at least appreciate the diligence and consultative way that the opposition has set about dealing with this issue. I wish to personally acknowledge the commitment and cooperation of Robert McClelland and his staff in working through the issues confronting us in this disallowance motion. I encourage all senators to support the disallowance motion and thereby force the government back to meaningful negotiations with the people with disabilities who are affected by these measures.16:31:005179Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The government clearly wishes to oppose the disallowance motion as tabled by Senators Allison and Margetts. Let me say at the outset that this government is committed to the objects of the Disability Discrimination Act, chief amongst which is the elimination, as far as possible, of discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in a wide range of areas, such as employment, education, provision of goods, facilities and services, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.I would firstly like to point out that the exemption of laws from the operation of the act was specifically provided for by this parliament when it enacted sections 47 and 132 of the act. Section 47(2) provides an exemption from the operation of the act for things done in direct compliance with a prescribed law. Section 132 enables regulations to be made to give effect to the prescription. The very action which is now the subject of this disallowance motion was specifically envisaged by the original drafters of the act. This provision is not one inserted by this government but one that we inherited from our Labor predecessors. It is one that was fully supported by the Australian Democrats at the time.The provision was included in the act to recognise the fact that this act has the potential to seriously impact on the proper functioning of state and territory governments in areas that Commonwealth governments have long regarded as the responsibility of the states and territories. I ask honourable senators whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the states and territories. The importance of the issue of principle cannot be underestimated. When the previous government passed the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, its operation did not extend to the states and territories at all. This act does, however, extend to the states and territories. Recognising the potential for the act to interfere in the proper regulation of particular matters, section 47 was inserted to allow for a mechanism to correct any unintended consequences of the operation of the act.I would like to briefly outline to the Senate the processes which led to the making of these regulations. In October 1993 the then Labor Attorney-General wrote to the state and territory Attorneys-General, and again in March 1995 and again in December 1995, concerning the need to review state legislation and to either remove such inconsistencies with the act as existed or, where necessary, seek prescription of laws pursuant to section 47(2) of the act. Requests for prescription were received from several states and territories. The regulations under debate today prescribe the following New South Wales legislation: the Mental Health Act 1990, the Mental Health Regulations Act 1995 and regulations 10(1)(c) and 11 of the Motor Traffic Regulations 1925; and the following South Australian legislation: sections 20 and 20A of the Firearms Act 1977, sections 88 and 148 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, sections 75(3) and 75A of the Education Act 1972, regulation 11 of the Industrial Employees Relations (General) Regulations 1994, and section 30A and schedule 3 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.I would like to point out that only a handful of the provisions which were identified by the states for possible prescription were actually agreed to by the Attorney-General. In some instances the view was taken that the provision in question did not breach the act while in others it was decided that, even though there was a potential breach of the act, there were insufficient reasons to justify prescription. Careful consideration was given to the relevant laws and the justification for the prescription provided by the state as well as other relevant factors.The government is aware that a central argument for seeking the disallowance of these regulations is the allegation that there has been insufficient consultation with the disability community in the process of deciding which acts warrant exemption from the act. However, I refer to section 132(2) of the act, which quite properly requires only that consideration be given to the comments made by a minister of a state or territory who is responsible to matters relating to disability discrimination before making regulations for the purposes of section 47. As required by the act, the Attorney-General took into consideration the comments of the New South Wales and South Australian Attorneys-General, being the ministers responsible for disability discrimination matters in New South Wales and South Australia.The government recognises the importance of consultation with the community in matters that affect them. However, in relation to prescription of legislation pursuant to section 47 of the act, we are firmly of the view that the responsibility for consultation with relevant stakeholders lies with the individual state or territory which is seeking to have its legislation prescribed, and not with the Commonwealth.I will now turn to some concerns about specific laws being prescribed, and I deal first with the New South Wales Mental Health Act. The prescription of the New South Wales Mental Health Act 1990 and Mental Health Regulations 1995 has generated some concern within the disability community. The concern is that the effect of prescribing the Mental Health Act and its regulations will permit any actions no matter how discriminatory or offensive to be exempted from the operation of the DDA. However, I stress the prescription will not have this effect. The exemption will apply only in relation to complaints of discrimination that would otherwise constitute unlawful discrimination under the act, and only in relation to acts that were done in direct compliance with a provision of the Mental Health Act or Mental Health Regulations.Before I further discuss the prescription of the Mental Health Act and its regulations, it is important that you be aware that the prescription of state mental health legislation was specifically envisaged when this parliament enacted section 47 of the act. The explanatory memorandum to the Disability Discrimination Bill, as it then was, states in relation to clause 47:. . . it is not intended that this bill would override the provisions of State legislation in certain areas, for example mental health.In approving New South Wales's request for the prescription of the Mental Health Act, the Attorney-General was particularly mindful of the fact that the area of mental health is clearly a state responsibility. As such, it is legitimate that a state government be free to determine the often competing interests of mentally ill individuals and the wider community.There has been no suggestion, of which I am aware, that the New South Wales Mental Health Act is so discriminatory that it ought not be prescribed. I remind honourable senators that the Mental Health Act has consider able checks and balances contained within it. It contains an extensive scheme allowing for review of decisions by courts and, in some cases, by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.The decision to prescribe the whole of the act and its regulations flows from the complexity of the act itself. Due to the interrelationship of provisions in terms of the mental health regime, it was not a simple matter to prescribe certain sections of the act and its regulations and not others. Accordingly, it was decided to prescribe the whole act and its regulations. However, it must be remembered that the effect of section 47(2) is that it protects actions only where they are done `in direct compliance with a prescribed law'. Where decisions are taken that allow for a discretion in the decision maker, then the impact of prescription will be reduced and may well protect only those who are obliged to comply with the original decision but would not protect the original decision maker.There has also been some concern expressed about the prescription of sections 75 and 75A of the South Australian Education Act 1972. These provisions allow the South Australian Director-General of Education to direct that a child who has a disability or learning difficulties be enrolled at a special school. The Director-General must take reasonable steps to consult with the parents of the child, and the decision of the Director-General may be appealed to the South Australian Local Court. The provisions state that a school must enrol a child in accordance with any direction made by the Director-General.The proper operation of the South Australian education system is in the end one for the South Australian government. The prescription of these sections may well not fully protect a decision of the Director-General as that decision is discretionary. However, it will protect schools which operate in direct compliance with the Director-General's direction. There are those who would argue that all children with disabilities should have access to mainstream schools. I am advised by the South Australian government that of the 10,000 plus students with disabilities in South Australia only 1,000 attend special schools and disability units. The great majority of students attend mainstream schools.One concern that has been voiced on a number of occasions by members of the community is a fear that these regulations will leave people with disabilities without any avenues for appealing decisions by which they are aggrieved. With great respect, that concern is misconceived. As previously discussed, both the New South Wales Mental Health Act and the South Australian Education Act provide for rights of review of decisions made under the acts. Likewise, the New South Wales Traffic Act, the South Australian Motor Vehicle Act and the Firearms Act all make provision for a right of review of a decision made under the relevant act. I must stress that these rights of review are in no way affected by the prescription of legislation under the Disability Discrimination Act.Should these regulations be disallowed what would be the effect? The Senate would in essence be removing the final decision making about matters, such as whether a child should attend a special school and mental health issues, from a carefully constituted and, in some cases, specialised state system to a generalist Commonwealth system involving the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and, ultimately, the Federal Court.The challenge for the Labor opposition is to stand up and declare that they believe the Commonwealth is better able to deal with issues relating to the rights of the mentally ill than is the newly elected government of New South Wales. I have heard senators opposite on many occasions speaking very strongly in support of the newly elected New South Wales government, but by voting in favour of this disallowance what you are saying is that the Commonwealth is better able to deal with these things than the newly elected New South Wales government.The government remains committed to protecting the rights of people with a disability in an appropriate and effective manner. I believe that is probably equally true of the New South Wales government. We do not assume that all wisdom in this respect rests with the Commonwealth. When the Disability Discrimination Act was enacted in 1992, it was at that time clearly recognised by the parliament that there might very well be a need to preserve the operation of certain perfectly valid state and territory laws. After extensive consultation with the New South Wales and South Australian governments, we have accepted the need to act in accordance with the DDA. I urge senators not to support this disallowance motion.16:45:005182Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I make it clear at the outset that I want to talk about the South Australian education provisions in the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations and not the other various parts. I listened very closely to what the Minister for Justice and Customs had to say about a number of points. One of those points was that we would be passing judgment on the newly elected government of New South Wales. I have no concerns about that. I am going to be making comments here today about the impact of these regulations on my constituents in South Australia and on some very important constituents in South Australia who do not have the privilege that I have here today—and probably never will have—of standing up in a forum like this and telling people as it really is.There are 800 students in South Australia who go to special schools out of a population of some 10,000 who could go to special schools. So far we have had a glossy presentation of that which says how successful mainstreaming has been in South Australia. There is a converse to that, and that is how bad some of the special schools are, how well they have been provided for in South Australia and how successful they have so far been.I want to make it clear here that this is not a partisan speech. As those people who know me know, I will give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the new Minister for Education, Children's Services and Training in South Australia, Malcolm Buckby, who is working at this moment with his department to rectify one of these problems. I say problem, but in reality it is a blight on humanity. I will say this for Mr Buckby: he and the minister before him, Mr Lucas, picked up a problem which my party did nothing about and which other governments of Liberal persuasion did nothing about, have never done much about, have never cared about or bothered with and, indeed, turned a blind eye to.Some few years ago I was asked to go down to one of the special schools in South Australia and what I saw down there made me embarrassed and ashamed of what was happening in my state. I went into a school which was not a school at all—it was a converted old house with bedrooms that were used for teaching environments and where there was inadequate supervision of the students by teachers. A large number of the students were incontinent. Some toilet additions had recently been added to this house, but as there was only one teacher to however many students—I think the ratio was about 1 to 12—if a problem emerged there was not much that could be done about it. I have been debating whether I should name the school, but I believe the other schools are similar to it and it would be unfair to that community who are now working to try to put a satisfactory building environment in place so that some educational outcomes can be achieved in this area. That day I saw fights among students. I saw students who were certainly well into their teens. Some were there because of mental disabilities that made them prone to violent reactions. In fact, it was an unsafe environment for the teachers who worked in it. It was an unsafe environment for people whose children would be forced to go into if this regulation were to get up and stay up. I got the impression that these kids were the forgotten ones.I make no comment here today about section 20 and 20A of the South Australian Firearms Act. I agree with the minister. I know something about that act and people who know of my previous employment would know that I know quite a bit about that act. That act does have a number of checks and balances within it, but there are no checks and balances for kids who have mental disabilities and who are going to be shoved into special schools whether their parents like it or not, into environments that are violent, where the state has not put in the necessary resources to protect those children or to achieve decent education outcomes and, indeed, where in many respects the bureaucracy is still slow to respond to the political demands that are now being pushed through the minister's office to try to sort out some of these problems.At the core of it is education budgets—I understand that. At the core of it is the desire by governments of both persuasions to appeal to voters. I have to say in this place today that it is very easy for me to vote to knock over these regulations. It is in the interests of those kids who are already in this school. If I can do anything that will get the South Australian government and the bureaucracy moving there to do something about the literally Third World schools that they expect these children to go to, then I will be proud of it and I want to thank the good senators for bringing this up here today. This is a very important issue.I do not have the time this afternoon to read out a very distressing letter that came to me about 13 months ago from a person who is well known to me—not only a friend but our family doctor. Her daughter went to one of these schools. In fact, it was her discussions with me years ago that had me go out to this particular special school. That was a very educational experience for me. In fact, I wrote a letter to the then education minister and, to his credit, he went out to the school as well and things started to happen.The letter from the doctor said a number of things. It said, firstly, that the person was very sad to say that her child would no longer be going to the special school. The reasons were that, from numerous visits to the school, it was obvious that the child was getting no specialised attention and was in a dangerous environment. While she was autistic and not prone to any violent behaviour, the same could not be said of many other students there and of the one teacher in that bedroom—because it did not pass as a classroom—that was responsible for that particular environment.A cynical person might say that the South Australian government is trying to get out from underneath on this one so that it does not get sued. I think that course of action is one that parents in South Australia who are not happy with the provision of services ought to be looking at. That will make governments and bureaucrats sit up and take note.The letter went on to say that the child would be removed forthwith and that the mother had no more faith in the system producing the outcomes. This person was medically trained—she was a doctor. Her husband concurred with the course of action. He was a surgeon. They are not people who have no knowledge of mental disability. They are not people who do not understand the processes. They are also not people who are likely to be snowed by government bureaucrats. However, if this regulation stands, the decision they made last year would be taken right out of their hands at the whim of the bureaucracy and there would be nothing those people could do about it. I am not going to vote for that.I want to go into this case a little further. This child is very lucky that both her parents are high income earners. Apart from the cost of the private school she goes to, they spend on private tuition what I get in salary every month. I want to repeat that: they spend what I get in salary every month on the provision of private services to help this child. They do that because they have the means, the education and the skills to pick the people to provide services and to see what can be done in this particular instance for their daughter to give her the best possible educational outcomes. If this disallowance motion were to get up, the decision to spend their money could be countervailed by negative educational experiences in some of these special schools.The next decision is an even more important one. This child now attends one of Adelaide's private schools. A modified curriculum has been agreed to by the parents and the school. That modified curriculum has meant that this particular child can have some mainstreaming experience. That is something which I—and perhaps other senators—think is important. I think a large number of people would benefit from mainstreaming. However, it has to be done with support, with resources and with protection for all the other students in that particular educational environment. It cannot just be done. People cannot be thrown in at the deep end and expected to swim—or, indeed, to sink. It seems to be working well in this particular private school. With the program that the parents have put in place and with the program that the school has put in place with financial support from two professional people who can afford these sorts of services, that program has worked and is working as best it can in the circumstances.A copy of this letter that came to me 13 months ago was sent to the minister and to the regional director of education. A flurry of phone calls were made to tell me that progress was still being made on this special school in South Australia. From discussions with the minister a short while ago, I understand that progress is still being made. What I saw down there some years ago now—and I understand it has not changed—disturbed me very much.Indeed, I think the South Australian government have a real hide in wanting an exemption from the Commonwealth act so that they can direct students to go into special schools, so that they can interfere in these processes and so that they can cover their own backside when everything blows up in their face—as it very well might have done in the case that I have illustrated in the Senate this afternoon.When the disability people came around to tell me that this proposal was going to be on the table, I looked at them with absolute disbelief. I did not think that the Commonwealth would go along with this sort of stuff. I do not know about New South Wales. I do not know what the story is there. I understand about the Motor Vehicles Act and the Firearms Act, and I suspect there are probably lots of checks and balances in that—and that is reasonable and fine—but I do know about the Education Act in South Australia. I know about it, and I have had first-hand experience of the whole system.When I finished reading this particular letter, the only description I can give is that it was a sad letter. These parents understood that, in the process of getting a decent educational environment for their daughter, physically building a decent school was only one of the issues that the government of South Australia would have to deal with.What I am talking about now is the physical provision of buildings, with observation areas for teachers so that they can look into other classrooms and when a need arises they can actually go in there and help out. That was only going to be the start. What was also going to be needed was a decent student to teacher ratio. The selection of staff was going to be important as well. It may not come as any shock here today that decent teachers in these environments do not last very long. The reason they do not last very long is that it is inherently unsafe for them.One of the teachers I met on that trip to the school—and I met her subsequently afterwards—was indeed a model of the profession. She worked with students as old as 19. Her daily work involved her never taking her eyes off the students in her care for one moment. She not only had to educate these kids, to protect them, she had to toilet some of these children as well—some of them well into their teens. It should not come as any shock that she was assaulted on a regular basis. She has now left that job. The stress of that environment is so great that a person can only do it for a short length of time.Under the principles that I adopt in relation to these things, one of the questions I ask myself is: would I like this to happen to me? It is a simple principle. If I had a child who required specialised education services—I do not, and for that I am very grateful—would I like that decision to be taken out of my hands and for my child to be put in one of these horror institutions and then forgotten about? The answer is no. That is the way I am going to vote here this afternoon.17:02:005185Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to support this motion relating to the disallowance of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1). These regulations prescribe provisions under eight separate state acts and regulations for the purposes of section 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.Disability organisations and their representatives have been calling for these regulations to be disallowed, primarily because they were formulated with no appropriate consultation and therefore fail to adequately address a number of key issues. The Attorney-General has failed to initiate any meaningful discussion or negotiation with key players, despite the fact that these regulations have been on the drawing board for nearly four years. The Attorney-General's refusal to consult with disability sector interests and with the wider community with regard to the regulations reveals a serious neglect of his ministerial responsibility and commitment to accountability.I have spoken to and received correspondence from a number of key disability organisations that are, quite understandably, outraged by the obvious lack of consultation surrounding these regulations. The Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition and the National Council on Intellectual Disability are among the groups that have approached me with their concerns in recent weeks. Both of these organisations at first tried to consult and negotiate with the Attorney-General via his department. However, apparently negotiating with key stakeholders is not high on this government's agenda when it comes to policy formulation.The Attorney-General has failed to meet with either the APDC or the NCID during what should have been a consultative period in the formation of the regulations. According to the APDC and the NCID:. . . this legislation undermines the intention and spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act to provide people with disabilities protection and justice from disability discrimination.Under principle B of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee guidelines, delegated legislation should not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I would add that that particular committee is very diligent in its duty to adhere to the guidelines set down. Disability organisations have built a strong case to support their belief that these regulations are in conflict with principle B. The APDC and the NCID have both stated that:To prescribe laws which discriminate against people with disabilities, and so denying access to Commonwealth discrimination legislation, is an undue trespass on the rights and liberties of people with disabilities. I am sure all senators would agree with that statement.The lack of adequate consultation undertaken by the Attorney-General has led to a situation where disability organisations are forced to oppose legislation simply because they were never even considered in the policy formulation process. Instead of including them, the Attorney-General has sought to formulate his policy in complete isolation. Consequently, we have before us a set of regulations that fails to reflect the needs and requirements of the community it seeks to govern.The Attorney-General hoped to successfully implement a range of measures that no-one from within the field had agreed with or contributed to, and that can only indicate his arrogance and ineptitude in this role. Not only were relevant organisations and groups excluded from the consultation process but also the broader community was similarly rebuffed. These regulations were drafted without any public consultation at either Commonwealth or state level.People with disabilities have not been informed as to the purpose of or rationale for the regulations. The regulations therefore come before parliament having received no scrutiny from interest groups, individuals or the community. The appropriate consultative mechanisms have been blatantly ignored in this highly exclusionist legislative exercise on behalf of the government.Furthermore, the regulations inappropriately pre-empt the current development of DDA standards. Section 31 of the DDA allows the Attorney-General to formulate special `disability standards' in relation to education, employment, transport, accommodation and Commonwealth laws and programs. The regulations currently being considered run counter to current processes to develop disability standards.The exclusionist development of these regulations can be contrasted with the more consultative processes employed in the formation of DDA standards. Representation from people with disabilities and relevant community, industry and government representatives has enabled the development of a broad consensus on DDA standard arrangements. Indeed, the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs' task force has already made significant developments toward establishing an education standard. The South Australian government is currently a partner on this task force for the development of the education standard.Despite this factor, the regulations seek to prescribe sections 75(3) and 75A of the South Australian Education Act 1972. If parts of the Education Act are to be prescribed, further negotiations in developing the DDA education standard will be thoroughly undermined. It baffles me why this government would seek to replace a consultative, open process with an exclusionist, divisive one that is already encountering significant resistance from key players.The Australian government is duty bound to defend the interests of people with disabilities in our community through its obligations under the UN human rights standard. However, I find it particularly disturbing that we are increasingly being forced to take the government to task on these basic issues affecting the rights of the vulnerable within our community.The recent unmet needs campaign revealed a gaping abyss in the services available to people with disabilities, their carers and families. Now the disability community is being systematically and deliberately excluded from consultation on issues that will invariably impact upon their day-to-day lives. The National Council on Intellectual Disability last weekend said $294 million was needed now to address the crisis in disability services.In every other sector of society, key players consult and negotiate with government on the areas of direct interest to them. The Business Council is asked to comment on the GST while farmers are asked to respond to the diesel fuel rebate. However, even in 1999 the disability community is still being excluded from decisions that are invariably forced upon them. I am certain that senators would want to empower people with disabilities, rather than exclude them from the processes available to all other Australians. This government has instigated a discriminatory regime with its regulations and has ignored the very people it purports to defend.I belong to a party that believes all Australians deserve equal rights to self-determination. The exclusionist practices of this government in formulating the regulations have been discriminatory, unfair and unethical in the extreme. Therefore, I support this disallowance motion.17:12:005187Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak to this disallowance motion, to reflect the sentiments put forward by my colleagues and particularly to highlight some of the cases that Senator Quirke mentioned a little while ago. I start by commending him and Senator Gibbs as well as the people who introduced this disallowance motion, Senators Allison and Margetts, for taking the initiative.From time to time we do get issues like this in this place—issues which directly affect the lives of individual Australians. We obviously always have issues that affect the lives of individual Australians, but in this particular case there is a direct impact through this legislation, and through the action we take this afternoon, on the lives of so many people in our community who really need assistance from rather than to be neglected by all tiers of government, particularly the Commonwealth government.Before us today is a motion to disallow the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1). These regulations, in essence, prescribe provisions under some eight separate state acts and regulations for the purposes of subsection 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act. The effect of this, essentially, is to allow exemption under subsection 47(2) for any act performed in direct compliance with the legislation—such as those eight acts that I just referred to. Subsection 47(2) was in fact included in the Disability Discrimination Act in order to allow the states and territories to continue to act in direct compliance with laws but with laws which would otherwise breach the principles underlying the Disability Discrimination Act.In essence a mechanism was found—I suppose primarily in many circumstances for an interim period—in the interests of good public policy to allow for exemptions from the Disability Discrimination Act. There was also a recognition that in some circumstances—once again in the interests of good public policy—a longer lasting exemption would also be necessary. This disallowance motion is essentially looking at the operation of subsection 47(2). The purpose of the provision was to allow the Commonwealth, states and territories time in which to modify their laws, where appropriate, to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. The other alternative is to seek prescription under 47(2). The period of three years from when the legislation was passed expired on 30 June 1995. The issue confronting us today is whether we should allow continued exemption from the Commonwealth legislation three acts of the New South Wales parliament and some five acts of the South Australian parliament.This side of the parliament is concerned—we believe it is a concern on the part of all non-government senators—not only about the outcome we are dealing with but also the process that was embarked on, which we also find before this parliament today. This process meant that those most deeply affected by the exemption from the legislation were not consulted. They were not consulted by any tier of government, I suppose it is fair to say. We should be concerned about the aspect of the national government and what sort of responsibility the national government should be showing on these matters.The national parliament showed responsibility when we first passed the legislation and, in doing so, set down guidelines, standards and acceptable patterns of behaviour that we believed should govern this area of how we handle disabled people in our community. So the parliament assumed a responsibility in passing that legislation. It also sent a very clear message to government that the Attorney-General would have an ongoing role to play in this area of public policy. This ongoing role essentially meant that matters would have to go to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General would be accountable to parliament in respect of those matters.What we have here is a failure by the Commonwealth Attorney-General and by the national government to fulfil such a responsibility. We should not let this now lead to a situation where that failure of responsibility is also adopted by the national parliament. It comes as no surprise in a sense because we are now at the end of a three- or four-year period where there has been a consistent eradication of the standard of protection for the disabled in our community. Whether it has been through the dwindling of resources in important mechanisms such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, whether it is increasing disregard of the plight of disabled people by departments such as the Attorney-General's Department, those patterns of behaviour have continued for quite some time.It is basically a philosophy that pervades the total government. This government believes that we should go back to the days of the late 1960s when responsibilities concerning the whole social structure of resources in our society, whether it be education or health, were the primary responsibility of the states. In the 1960s and early 1970s the conservative parties believed that the national parliament did not have a continuing role to play in respect of those areas, other than some general funding arrangements which were entered into annually or over a longer period. But it was essentially only after the late 1960s and early 1970s that there was an assumption of greater responsibility by national parliaments in respect of areas such as this. One of the real concerns I have about the current debate on the GST package is that hidden in there—far from public view but very much at the forefront of considerations of this government—is a commitment by this Prime Minister and this government to send functions back to the states. You hear the Prime Minister talking in code, saying, `We want to give the states a guaranteed base for funding so that they can meet their traditional responsibilities.' He is never asked what they are; he is never pinned down as to what they might be. But you can be sure that it will lead to a situation where more and more responsibilities will be flicked back to the states.There is no deal that the Australian Democrats can get into now that will protect against more and more responsibilities being flicked back to the states—responsibilities such as monitoring disability services across the community in education, health care and child care. All of these services will go back to the states in the traditional Menzies-Howard way. The states will be told, `You've got your guaranteed base funding. If you need more, then you ask to put the GST rate up. If you don't do that, then you have to survive within the resources that you have, although we are throwing more responsibilities back to you.' As I say, there is absolutely no deal that the Australian Democrats can get into today that will protect against that devolution of authority. They should not go down this alley blinded by their naivety that things will be all right because at the end of the day there will be a guaranteed base of income.Just look at the pattern of behaviour of this government and this Prime Minister: this is a prime minister that wants to wind back national responsibility; this is the government that wants to wind back national participation and involvement. Whether it is the environment, whether it is education, whether it is child care—whatever you look at—the government wants accountability and funding sources to go back to the states. This is another instance of where we are laying the foundations for abdication of responsibility by the federal parliament.While the Democrats are having their deliberations and going through these secret meetings that they have condemned others for having in the past, just keep in mind Senator Bartlett and all of your colleagues, and just keep in mind Mr Raper of ACOSS, that you are basically laying the foundations here for a return to 1960s and 1970s policy formulation and policy delivery. That has to be of major concern to those interested in the GST debate, even though it has not come to the forefront of the discussion so far. I challenge anyone to go back through the interviews, through the speeches and through the questions without notice in the parliament and identify those code words of a prime minister longing for the pre-Whitlam days of the 1960s in his desire to drive the social agenda back to the states. As I say, if this happens the states will get more and more responsibilities of the kind we see in the disallowance motion that is before us today.We have here an Attorney-General who basically has said, `This is not my responsibility.' We have an Attorney-General and a government who over the years have said, `This is an area of disability that we will take less and less responsibility for,' whether in respect of funding for HREOC or funding in other departments. That this must be of major concern to us is highlighted by the fact that, in this particular instance, once again the Attorney-General has abdicated his responsibility and the national government has abdicated its responsibilities also.Notwithstanding the fact that neither the Attorney-General nor the government consulted prior to their abdicating the field in the face of this issue, the issue itself has been a live one for quite some time now. The Attorney-General and the government have refused to consult. They have refused to engage. They have refused to sit down with those in the community who have `primary carriage'—I suppose that is the best way of putting it—of this issue. They have refused to discuss with those who are involved with this particular issue what their major concerns are in an attempt to mete out some arrangement with the states that basically would accommodate some, if not all, of those concerns.Senator Quirke I think put forward quite clearly one particular live situation of concern. But this debate this afternoon has to highlight the fact that we are talking here about a regime of state legislation. The Commonwealth should have sat down with the states and said, `Let's go back to the drawing board; with a degree of goodwill and cooperation, there are issues that can be overcome here.' But that did not happen. So there has been no consultation, no discussion since the passing of legislation by state jurisdictions; since the issue has arisen in this place, basically there has been no discussion.The only meaningful discussion to have taken place has been in this parliament, in the Senate, as a consequence of this particular motion to strike out the regulations. That has led the opposition to a situation where we have been able to analyse—as have the minor parties, I am sure—the subject areas before us. In respect of those subject areas and that legislation, as my colleagues have indicated, there are bills with which we are concerned, there are acts with which we are concerned—and there are certain acts with which we are greatly concerned.We have substantial concern, for instance, with the New South Wales Motor Traffic Regulations, clauses 10(1)(c) and 11; two sections of the South Australian Firearms Act 1977; and the South Australia Motor Vehicles Act 1959, sections 88 and 148. With our concern over those pieces of legislation, the government's knee-jerk response will be to say, `If you bowl over, knock off what we are trying to do here this afternoon, there will be danger to the community.'In answer let me put this: if we do knock off what is being attempted here this afternoon, if we do disallow those regulations, there is sufficient time for the government to do now what it should have done before—and that is to go back and talk to the states and try to get them to pass legislation which would be in closer conformity with national disability discrimination legislation. There is time to do that. If the government is concerned about indirect and unintended consequences, then the mechanism of appeal is available. Let us face it: an appeal will take much longer than a meeting with ministers, two state and one federal, to resolve any outstanding issue. There is more than enough time for any amending legislation to be passed in the state jurisdictions to accommodate any problem.Let me say further on that point that, over the years, experience has been that the operation of the Firearms Act and the two road traffic acts has not led to any problems. That has been our experience and the experience of the jurisdictions about which we are talking.We have substantial concerns about quite a breadth of other legislation also. We are concerned about the breadth of prescription and unintended consequences of the New South Wales Mental Health Act and Regula tions. But, as I have said, we believe that those unintended consequences could very easily be resolved by negotiation—and that negotiation could be undertaken now.We are concerned that there is inherent discrimination in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 of South Australia. It discriminates between mental disorders and other injuries and disabilities. That sort of state legislation could very easily be brought into line with the federal legislation that operates currently. But, once again, the federal government has made no attempt to do that. We would like to see this government encouraging the South Australian government to address that issue directly in the South Australian parliament by way of legislation; and I am sure that legislation would receive the support of the opposition in that state parliament.We are concerned also about the South Australian Education Act. Our concerns here are not easy ones and I think were put on the record quite elaborately by Senator Quirke. We do have standards in respect of many of these areas. We do have standards under Commonwealth legislation. In a sense, it is quite bewildering to realise that we do not demand the application of those standards in respect of this particular area.The disability community is concerned that the prescription of these provisions in the South Australian Education Act pre-empt the development in that state of a disability standard by removing the need for the South Australian government to negotiate over its content. Once again, it comes back to what this debate is all about. The government, by pursuing this course by regulation, is removing access. For instance, in the South Australian situation, it has removed access to the development of a disability standard, one which could more fairly treat the disabled in the South Australian community who are applying or entering the education process.The last area I should mention is the South Australian Industrial and Employee Relations (General) Regulations. These relate to the operation in that state of sheltered workshops. In that state, people who work in sheltered workshops do so on less than award wages. These regulations seek to maintain a lower than acceptable rate of return for those people. But there has been inquiry after inquiry, report after report, from 1992, through 1995, to 1997. Inquiries have been had by committees of this parliament, a review has been conducted by the Commonwealth Disability Services program and a report was done in 1997 by the Department of Health and Family Services.Basically, all these found that we should not be addressing the question of financial viability of sheltered workshops by providing for the payment of reduced wages to those working there; that there are other ways of handling that issue. In fact, they said it was not only anachronistic but also offensive that people working in these workshops be expected to do a day's work on the basis of under award wages.I could go on and on about some of the consequences of the government's regulations but, in conclusion, I make two points. The first is that we oppose the regulations and support the disallowance motion, and we do so on the basis of the direct consequences on the lives of the disabled in our community. We also do so in the knowledge that it would not take all that much effort by a federal government to meet its responsibilities to ensure a negotiation process here.My second point is the one I started off with: this is a great example of where the federal government abdicates responsibility. It is a great example of where they cut back on their resources, on their monitoring and on their accountability mechanisms, and they give that function back to the states. I have to say to Senator Bartlett and other Democrats: if a GST package gets through this House in the next few weeks, we will be seeing a lot more of that.17:31:005190Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I wish to speak on behalf of Senator Lyn Allison who, together with Senator Margetts, put forward the motion we are now debating. The Democrats are keen that the Senate appreciate the effect these regulations would have if they continued to be in force. They are, basically, a licence to discriminate. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Margetts for her contribution. The Democrats support the contribution she has made and the contribution which I am sure she is going to make in reply at the end of this debate.These regulations relate to the Disability Discrimination Act, which was passed by this parliament in 1992. It is quite a significant piece of legislation. The preamble outlines the objects of the act, and it is worth going over them again. Among the objects are:(a) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of:(i) work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport; and(ii) the provision of goods, facilities, services and land; and(iii) existing laws; and(iv) the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; and(v) to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and(vi) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.Although each of these objects is certainly important, the Australian Democrats see the last one as capturing, in many ways, the essential spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act, and it warrants repeating. It is:(vi) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.It must be said, however, that if we are going to recognise and accept the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights, then implicit in that statement is the right for them to be consulted on actions that may affect their rights.These regulations and, more importantly, the way they were formulated give rise to another question mark over Australia's national human rights record. It is somewhat astounding that the government has not properly consulted with disability advocacy groups on the formulation of these regula tions. It is not enough to simply say, `It is a state and Commonwealth matter.' It is a matter that directly affects people with disabilities, and they should be consulted as widely as possible. It is equally surprising that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has not been consulted in their formulation. I put on the record, on behalf of the Democrats for future reference by the government, that the Democrats will not countenance the peeling back of the human rights of Australians. In fact, it is the Democrats' specific policy intention to broaden the scope of antidiscrimination legislation at Commonwealth and state levels, and these regulations, in the Democrats' view, run counter to that principle. The unfortunate aspect of the government's approach to these regulations is that they were so unnecessary.I draw attention to another part of the Disability Discrimination Act, namely section 31, which allows for the creation of what the act refers to as disability standards. In many ways, these are regulations in their own right, but they are positive in nature because of their educative effect. The standards seek to establish benchmarks in a whole raft of areas, including employment, education, accommodation, public transport services and facilities, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs in respect of persons with a disability. Anyone who has a disability—or experience with friends or relations who live with a disability—will know exactly how difficult mobility can be on public transport systems. I take the opportunity to congratulate state and federal transport ministers, who finally—seven years after the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act—have succeeded in formulating section 31 standards as they relate to transport. These standards have been warmly welcomed by the disability community, and there is a very good reason for that: they were formulated with the input, consultation and consideration of people with disabilities. They will, I expect, be warmly received by people on all sides of this House.Apart from the capacity of the Disability Discrimination Act to have these standards or regulations made, there is also a capacity for the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, under section 67(i), to:examine enactments, and (when requested to do so by the Minister) proposed enactments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the enactments or proposed enactments are, or would be, inconsistent with or contrary to the objects of this Act, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination.I think it is appropriate to ask the government: has such an inquiry been directed to the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner in relation to this issue we are debating today, and if not, why wasn't that done? Of all the options that are contained within the Disability Discrimination Act, why is it that the government has chosen the biggest stick to crack the smallest nut?State governments have hardly been overwhelmed by vexatious and frivolous claims from people with disabilities, so why the imperative to bulldozer through these regulations or regulations of this type? Put simply, there is never a reason not to consult with people who are affected—in this case, people who have disabilities. On one level it is a matter of simple respect, on another it is a matter of good public policy making and on another it is a matter of ensuring the best possible outcome and a degree of involvement that ensures that people who are affected are able to feel confident that all issues that may be relevant to them have been taken into account.In summary, this motion is meant to send the government back to the drawing board. If the Senate supports the motion, that will be its effect. I think it will also send a message to the government—certainly from the Democrats' point of view—that they should consult more with people with disabilities. It is not adequate to simply say you have spoken to your state government counterparts. We suggest also that the government make better use of the public expertise of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission before regulations such as these are presented in this chamber in the future.17:38:005192West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not intend to take a great deal of time today on this disability discrimination motion, but I do want to voice my concern and sadness that this disallowance motion has had to be brought on. It has had to be brought on because the Attorney-General thinks that consultation is not necessary. That is a real worry. This is a national government. We are trying to bring about national standards, and we are trying to have some commonality apply between all of the states. It is nearly a century since we became a federation. We had hoped—and we would have expected—that gone were the days where disability legislation regulations went back to the days of the old rail system where each state had its own gauge. This government obviously does not care about doing anything, and it is not taking any action, to enable some commonality so that people can move between states knowing that they are going to be subjected to the same regulations and the same laws.The minister has indicated in discussions with the Labor Party that his office does not regard it as the Commonwealth's responsibility to consult on these matters. When the government are bringing in or amending Commonwealth legislation and regulations they have a responsibility to consult with the states and with the groups which are involved and affected by their actions. They have chosen not to do that. That is a gross abrogation of the government's responsibility to people in this country.I note that several pieces of legislation within these regulations come from my own state. They appear to be minor. The groups that are involved with the provision of disability services regard them as probably unintended consequences. If the minister and the government were being responsible, as they should be, they would know that unintended consequences can easily occur. When you are busily involved with some project you can look at the main game and think that it looks good, but it is like proofreading and editing scripts: you look at it and you think it is fine, but a fresh set of eyes can pick up some small problem that can change the whole thing dramatically. It would appear that this government has not even bothered to do that and, as I said, that is an abrogation of its responsibilities and its duty of care to people with disabilities and their families.The Disability Discrimination Act has been in force for a number of years. It is part of a whole raft of legislation that has been introduced in the last 10 years to reform the area of disability services. When I came back to this place in 1990, one of the first inquiries I was on, as a member of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, was a review into employment services and options for people with disabilities. Before the federal government and the South Australian government look at this any further—and it is in the area of employment that this regulation is causing the most concern—they should go back and read that community affairs committee report and understand the importance of employment to people with disabilities and the importance of receiving adequate recompense for the work that they are doing.It would appear from these regulations that the South Australian government will allow sheltered workshops to continue with the same old practices that have been going on for 20 or 30 years and will not look to doing anything to renew, to revitalise and to improve the employment prospects and opportunities for people with disabilities. This is an absolute shame. I have very a clear recollection of evidence and submissions from that inquiry of how important people with disabilities felt it was to be able to go to work and for their work to be integrated into the work of the mainstream workplace. I shall never forget a young man in Sydney who was working with assistance as the only person with a disability in an able-bodied workplace and his delight at being able to earn a wage that was not the pension and being able to live independently, albeit with assistance. He said that the best thing about all of this was that he actually paid tax. The rest of us raised our eyebrows, but to this person with a disability the fact that he paid tax indicated to him that he was the same as everybody else.It is very important that we recognise that the desires and aspirations of people with disabilities are very similar to ours. They want to live independently. They want to do many of the things that most of us here do. They want to work, and they do not want to be placed in work situations where they do not feel their contribution is valued. This is a vitally important point for people to understand. If you are making laws and amendments or having anything to do with changes to the laws that relate to people with disabilities, it is important to recognise that, as far as possible, people with disabilities want to be treated the same as everybody else.Over the years we have seen the changes that have taken place in accommodation—the move away from institutionalised accommodation into group homes and supported accommodation. That was initially greeted with cries of horror and, particularly on the part of parents of people with disabilities, concern as to how they would cope with being removed from the gentle cocoon that the family wanted to put them into, where they could nurture them and not treat them like everybody else. We also heard the cries of horror when it was suggested that people with disabilities should actually be encouraged to try to participate in the workplace, albeit with assistance. We do not want to see any reversal of those improvements that have been made.People with disabilities, and their peak bodies, have to be consulted. Not to do so is to treat them like second-class citizens and to dismiss the fact that they have the same rights as everybody else. Just because somebody does not look or sound like you or me does not mean that they do not have the same rights that you or I have to access to accommodation, access to employment and to undertake lots of activities, including marriage and, if it is possible, having children, if that is their wish. These are all very confronting issues for some people to have to address, but we must not discriminate against people with disabilities.Sometimes it is very hard to define what is a disability. A number of us here require glasses to see. I probably could not see you, Madam Acting Deputy President, if I did not have my glasses on. Is that a disability? Where in the spectrum of disability does one disability become acceptable and another not acceptable? We really do have to look very carefully at how we treat people with disabilities, how we care for them and how we respond to their needs. For the most part, their needs are the same as ours, but in some areas their needs will be greater than ours.We cannot afford to discriminate against some people with disabilities. Discrimination occurs when only a small number of people with a problem are affected. If everybody has to abide by those regulations and laws, whether they have a disability or not, then it is not discriminatory. If the whole of the community has to abide by something, then it will probably not be discriminatory. But where you are lining somebody up because they are different in some way, then you really do have a problem.I am concerned that this government has failed to see that it has a responsibility to consult, discuss and negotiate, and I would suggest that this has led to a lot of the problems that we are seeing today. I know from other speakers that the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1) may be disallowed not because people are happy to do so but because they have concerns about some aspects and they have concerns about the government's failure to consult. If the government wants to bring these regulations in, I would urge it to, first of all, undertake a very serious and genuine round of consultations. The peak bodies and the people themselves are out there ready, willing and able to consult and negotiate. But the Attorney-General and his department have, by all accounts, chosen not to, and for that I think they stand condemned.As I say, people with disabilities are no different from you or me and therefore they should not be discriminated against. Just as you or I would expect to be consulted and involved in things that affect our future—and we would certainly be demanding a say—so too do people with disabilities have that right. I certainly support this disallowance motion.17:50:005194Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—in reply—In closing this debate on the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), I would like to thank all honourable senators who have contributed to what has been a very interesting and constructive debate today. I would like to go through some of the points that have been mentioned by other senators and then go back to some of the main issues that are driving this disallowance motion today.First of all, I would like very much to thank the opposition for indicating their support for the disallowance motion. I realise that there are issues of varying complexity within the ambit of this particular disallowance motion and I also realise that part of the problem was the inability to separate out some of the elements within the regulations which could have been supported.There was mention of the Disability Discrimination Act and the ability of the original act to allow the handing back of powers. The fact that the act allows it is not an argument for what we see now. When did the act allow it? Why now, and why not with proper process? It has been argued very cogently that, if they had wanted to, there has been time for the states and the Commonwealth government, particularly the Commonwealth minister, to engage in proper process. It makes no sense to put this through at this stage without any of that process having taken place.Senator Vanstone argued—and it seemed to be the main thrust of her argument—that this matter is the responsibility of the states and territories. This government has no problems with introducing draconian laws and removing rights in relation to things such as industrial relations. This government has no problems with transferring money from the public sector to the private sector in relation to schools. This government does not have any problem with interfering with what it thinks are states areas, such as education, housing and so on, where it is a matter of removing rights and responsibilities. It is quite happy to deal with legislation provided it can walk backwards from its responsibilities. It is not a matter of whether these are Commonwealth powers; it is not a matter of whether these are Commonwealth responsibilities. Remember, this is a Commonwealth act. The states cannot administer a Commonwealth act: it is the Commonwealth's responsibility.Senator Vanstone said that the requests for prescription were received from several states and territories. She also said that there was, if you like, an ambit claim from the states. The successful states, using some people's jargon—some people would say they were the unsuccessful states—were South Australia and New South Wales. We have not heard from the minister, we have not heard from Senator Vanstone today and we have not heard—and the groups involved have not heard—from the Attorney-General on what basis that decision was made. If there was an ambit claim of lots of laws that the various states threw into the basket, what was the process and what was the basis upon which some of those regulations were accepted as being thrown in for prescription and others were not? We are still left in the dark as to what that process was.We understand that the act only requires consultation by state ministers. We also understand that there are lots of acts that require certain people to be consulted. That in no way says that it is the correct practice not to consult with relevant parties. Can you imagine dealing with a tax act or a corporate bill? We have had examples in relation to the ANTS package. There is no way this government would consider introducing a bill which interacted in any way with corporate Australia without consulting fully with all of the interested bodies. There is no way that those interested bodies would not come and speak to the Commonwealth. Can you imagine a Commonwealth minister from the coalition refusing to speak to those bodies and saying, `Look, I'm sorry. There is legislation about this kind of matter in the states and we are not going to talk to you'? Ministers would not say that.It seems to me that in this particular case this very weak excuse is being used simply because it is a matter on which the Commonwealth government is having difficulty coming to any ethical decisions. So it has handballed it. As Senator Vanstone mentioned, the states put in the ambit claim. They did not make the final decision: it was the Commonwealth that made the final decision. Any reasonable, responsible government would then take the responsibility for that decision. What were the reasons? Has the government given them? No, it has not. It is not, I believe, the right thing to do to use an odd concept of states right as a catch-all for lack of consultation and proper process.Senator Vanstone, to reinforce her point, used education and said that the proper operation of the South Australian education system is, in the end, the responsibility of the South Australian government. The human rights obligations and responsibilities—that is, those international obligations to which Australia is a signatory—were not signed specifically by negotiators from the states: they were signed by the Commonwealth. Therefore, if what we are doing is making sure that basic human rights and basic international agreements are adhered to, it is not the proper thing to then expect that it is the South Australian government that should be the only one involved in consultation.It may well be true—and it seems to me from the contributions from various senators that they have indications that it is true—that the state governments have not done their job in terms of consultation, but that is no excuse for the Commonwealth to put their hands behind their back and say, `Well, we're not going to either.' Here we have a situation where the final decision was the Commonwealth's and in some ways the state governments will say that that final decision was out of their hands. They may well be right. We know the Commonwealth government are quite prepared to make decisions removing or changing workers rights. Therefore, it is not valid to suggest that, when it comes to workers rights, there is no power or ability for the Commonwealth to be involved.Senator Quirke gave a very moving example of special schools and the choices, or lack of choices, that may be available now and the fewer choices that may be available should this legislation go through, considering the pressure that is being put on states to reduce costs, the economic rationalists and the pressure that comes from things like competition policy and each school and each sector having to `make a profit'. I believe the pressure on the states to get out of those responsibilities will be huge. Perhaps they will have to lump various people with various needs into certain institutions without being able to see whether it might be more appropriate for some of those students to be in mainstream schools with the students in those schools being able to see the benefits of sharing with those people who have different abilities from their own. I believe there are benefits on both sides.Senator Gibbs talked about the Attorney-General's neglect of ministerial responsibility and emphasised the lack of consultation. Talking about disability, we might say that this legislation is in itself an example of discrimination. Where a minister would in most cases see the necessity of consulting with relevant groups to get feedback from the very people who are likely to be most affected, in this case that minister has not been able to bring himself to talk to those people. We can only ask why. Contrast this, as Senator Gibbs did, with the GST consultation. But even within the consultation in the ANTS package there are certain people the government has chosen to consult and other people the government has chosen to turn its back on.Senator Bolkus criticised the guaranteeing base for funding to states with no monitoring and oversight. We could add to the list. To education we can add environment. This government is moving away from its environmental responsibilities and here we have a situation where it is moving away from its human rights responsibilities. I believe there is no point in the Senate assisting and abetting the removal of the Commonwealth's connection with its responsibilities for the money they are spending and for the responsibilities they have signed up to in terms of international agreements. Senator Bolkus quite rightly said that what we would be doing would be laying down conditions for further abdication of Commonwealth responsibilities.I thank Senator Bartlett for his contribution. He stood in at short notice for Senator Allison, who was otherwise engaged in consultations of a different sort. I thank the Democrats as joint movers of this motion. Senator West, from the opposition, talked about a report from the Standing Committee on Community Affairs specifically about disabilities and issues in relation to disabilities and indicated that the government is clearly ignoring the report and the outcomes from the findings of that committee. One can only wonder who the government was listening to—who the Attorney-General thought he was representing in this case.I return to the report that I tabled with the assistance of honourable senators here and the report from the Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition and the National Council on Intellectual Disability. They talked of people with disabilities and their representatives not being consulted. As they mention, the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act is an act of parliament. Their report says:The power contained in the DDA to make regulations is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Attorney General. In the final analysis, the responsibility for making of such regulations lies with the Commonwealth Attorney General. The Commonwealth Attorney General's refusal to discuss the regulations with the community and the disability sector is a neglect of his Ministerial responsibility and accountability.It was not specifically required in the act, but this is the least one could expect. It goes on to say:The legislation is therefore presented to parliament without any publicly known rationale, community discussion or input.Not only did the Attorney-General not talk to these groups but he did not provide any rationale at all for the basis of the decision—and neither did Senator Vanstone today. Senator Vanstone's only argument was that it was concerned with state powers and this was rightly the role of states. The states did not provide a rationale and now neither has the Commonwealth. The report says:The move to prescribe state legislation and regulations without consultation suggests that state responsibility to ensure that state legislation is consistent with disability discrimination legislation is being ignored.If the states are ignoring it, it is no excuse for the Commonwealth to do so as well. The Greens (WA) believe, as everybody does, that the preparation of regulations should be in line with the current standards of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition and the National Council on Intellectual Disability argue that section 31 of the DDA provides the Attorney- General with the ability to formulate standards to be known as disability standards in relation to education, employment, transport, accommodation and Commonwealth laws and programs. But they believe that the delegation legislation prepared by the Commonwealth Attorney-General is:. . . in direct conflict with the current processes to develop disability standards. The process to develop disability standards involves representation from people with disabilities and relevant community, industry and government representatives.So you have the Attorney-General with the power in the legislation to develop standards, and in this process this minister has turned away from that and is pretending that, even though he has this power and—I would say—this responsibility, he does not have to abide by it. Quite clearly, the High Court supports the contention that all Australian law should be subject to human rights standards. Why should disability standards be any less than any other standards?I agree that this government is prepared to turn its back on any standards that Australia has signed up to on an international level. But this exacerbates the existing differences in society. In the workplace it is the difference in power between workers and people being treated for a mental illness. I quote again from this report:The stigma and assumptions surrounding mental illness make people with such a disorder a most vulnerable group in need of as much protection as can be given.Yet in this instance we are not giving more protection; we are giving less. It behoves the Senate to listen to the words that have been given to us today. Again I thank all honourable senators for their valuable contributions. I urge the government to consider carefully what has been said today and accept this disallowance motion. You should make sure that you do it right the next time and make sure that your very act of legislation is not in itself a discrimination against those very people that you should be looking after. I commend the disallowance motion to the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.18:11:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator A.J.J. Bartlett)31Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Allison, L. Vanstone, A. E.Bolkus, N. Lightfoot, P. R.Collins, J. M. A. Crane, W.Denman, K. J. MacGibbon, D. J.Hutchins, S. Knowles, S. C.Mackay, S. Hill, R. M.Murray, A. Reid, M. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills5198Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had assented to the following laws: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1998-99 Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill 1998 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 1998 Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Bill 1999 Bills5198s2135198Debate resumed.18:14:005198Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats have grave concerns with the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 . We are still a little unsure as to what is driving the government in the implementation of this legislation, which we consider unworkable and as having undesirable aspects in relation to this regulatory regime. This morning, in discussing the exemption of this bill from the cut-off, I referred to the government's failure to establish a need for this legislation and its inability to substantiate some of the reasons it has put forward for this legislation, in particular in relation to community concerns. Since the government has no intention to change its strategy on this proposal at this late stage, I will take this opportunity to outline the Democrats' continuing concerns with this bill and the government's approach.Before outlining the Democrat concerns, I remind the Senate—particularly in light of Senator Tierney's contribution to this debate—that the Democrats are not advocates of unsuitable Internet material being made available to minors. That view is probably reflected among all honourable senators in this place. However, we are unable to countenance the markedly different treatment of similar materials published in different media. This is an important point for us in debating this legislation. The Democrats do not advocate an entirely laissez-faire approach to the regulation of Internet content, but clearly we have major concerns with the mechanisms proposed by the government and the extent of their interference in legitimate expression.As we have pointed out on numerous previous occasions, our concerns are divided primarily into two main groups. The first of these relates to the unworkability of the proposals. In particular, we are opposed to the creation of a system of regulation which has no hope of preventing access to inappropriate materials. The very intention of the legislation is to block or stop what is considered inappropriate material. Why create a regulatory regime that does not necessarily have the ability to do just that?The bill addresses content published on Australian servers and overseas servers in markedly different ways. For Australian content, the bill provides a regime that can work, although at significant cost to the Australian Internet industry. There are major concerns about the interaction between the ABA as the peak regulatory authority and the use of industry codes to create enforcement mechanisms in tune with the legislation. But the big problems with the workability of this proposed legislation are linked to the problem of regulating Internet behaviour beyond our jurisdiction. By now it is recognised in most countries that regulation of the Internet is a jurisdictional problem probably without peer. The jurisdictional problem obviously arises in relation to the treatment of material that originates overseas.However, instead of developing an approach which would have the possibility of preventing the access of minors to inappropriate material, the government seems to have taken a leaf out of the story of King Canute. Standing on Australia's metaphorical shore and demanding that the tide of content turn back seems a bit far-fetched as a legislative response to Internet regulation. But this is actually what the government is envisaging. For materials hosted overseas the legislation demands that Internet service providers take `reasonable steps to block access to content which would be classified as inappropriate'. I think we should draw the Senate's attention to remarks by the government on this aspect of the legislation. In press releases, media interviews and indeed during the Senate committee process, the government has referred to technical feasibility as the test, but contrary to repeated assurances this is not the test to be applied in the legislation. Overwhelming evidence has been provided showing that the blocking of materials is going to be costly to the Australian Internet industry—both directly and indirectly. More significantly, evidence was provided to the committee investigating this bill which indicated that the blocking mechanisms and approaches suggested were technically flawed. Senator Tierney alluded to some of that evidence as well.The performance implications are very serious and the proposed blocking would be easily circumvented. Evidence on the performance of blocking technologies indicated overwhelmingly that they were more successful the closer to the user they were implemented. The overall conclusion in evidence presented to the committee in the CSIRO report is:Content blocking implemented purely by technological means will be ineffective.The other area of broad concern that the Australian Democrats have with the proposed legislation is the undesirable aspect of many aspects of the proposed content control regime. I have listed some of these concerns before, but I reiterate them for the purpose of this debate. They include: the failure to address civil liberties concerns relating to privacy and freedom of speech and expres sion, the creation of broad discretions and uncertain law enforcement provisions, the different treatment of materials in different media, the almost certain adverse impact on the Internet industry in Australia, the likely deleterious impact on the information economy in Australia and the failure to address concerns about the likelihood of inappropriate and inadvertent blocking of materials and related issues. I will expand on some of these issues of concern.The Democrats feel compelled to remind the parliament of the place of free speech in our system of government. We must be aware that freedom of speech is what is left after the boundaries have been defined by the courts and the parliament. We do not believe that the government has met the onus required to justify the restrictions proposed under the legislation. During the committee process the comparison was drawn between the proposed regime and the content controls implemented in other countries not often classed as liberal democracies. It should be noted that recent news reports suggest that Canada has now abandoned previous attempts to control content.We are very concerned about the legal construction of the legislation. In this context, our main concern relates to the broad problem of creating an unenforceable law. We have already indicated that the failure of this unworkable law might lead to further and perhaps more punitive demands for Internet content control. There is also the concern that a largely unenforceable law will lead to undermined confidence in government and further distrust from the Internet community. Believe me, in evidence before the committee and in the many faxes, phone calls and emails we have received from the industry, both in this country and overseas, there is already a level of distrust of this government and uncertainty in those important sectors.The different treatment of like content also deserves attention. The government has made it quite clear that it views the Internet as analogous to existing media. I note that this bill draws on broadcasting and narrowcasting analogies to explain some of its provisions. The government continually denies the special nature of Internet publishing processes. Internet content is made available by huge numbers of publishers. It is made available on a pull or demand driven model: users must explicitly request material before it is provided. As one of only a few countries in the world with content controls, Australia would become a less desirable place to host or develop Internet content. This and other indirect economic costs would be likely to have significant impact on the development of the whole Internet industry in Australia. Surely that industry is something that we want to encourage and support, not clamp down on or quash. This is in addition to the direct costs of enforcement which I have already referred to.Alternatives—relying on voluntary client-side blocking, education and adult responsibility—would be unlikely to have such a detrimental impact on the development of the information economy in Australia. It is hard to imagine any group that would benefit economically, except perhaps the multinational creators of family content. The likely shake-up in the Australian Internet industry would lead to a reduction in the diversity and coverage of Internet service providers in Australia. The Democrats view this as a very unfortunate outcome generally but particularly unfortunate for regional and country users of Internet facilities.Evidence was also given at the Senate select committee about a number of inconsistencies in the funding of the content regulation mechanisms. In particular, the Democrats would like to draw attention to the vastly different classification regimes proposed by the government in the bill for Internet content and the simultaneous move to a user-pays system in film and video classification.Another of the big concerns about the government's proposal is the need to regulate the use and operation of any filtering technologies. These concerns apply to both client-side and service provider based filtering. Numerous cases and studies confirm that content filters often block material which it would actually be desirable to make available—it is inadvertent blocking of those materials. Concerns have been raised about the blocking of sites referring to, say, health issues such as breast cancer. Gay and lesbian sites, especially those for teenagers, are blocked by most filtering programs. Other examples of sites that are blocked include: the anti-racism site, HateWatch; safe sex sites; safe drug use sites; drug sites about feminism; and sites about alternative politics. A very recent analysis of one of the government's favoured technologies has revealed the blocking of the National Party home page and the Mick's Whips e-commerce site. I note in passing that this site has often been used by the leader of the National Party as an example of the success of Australia's information economy. Imagine blocking a National Party home page!The Australian Democrats believe that any use of filters, whether client-side or ISP based, must be regulated to prevent the imposition of value systems which are not explicit. Users must know exactly what will be blocked and alternatives must be made available which do not promulgate narrow American family values. That is not meant to be an adverse reflection on American society, but just a reflection on where a lot of the content is coming from. Systems which are based on complex weighting schemes, such as that provided by Clairview as an example, should only be employed after a rigorous and open examination of the inherent assumptions that are being made about content. Blocking lists and weighting schemes must be fully disclosed to prevent abuse. In a democracy, censorship mechanisms cannot be as protected as trade secrets.Given the time available, I would now like to make it very clear what the Democrat position is on this bill. We do not advocate unsuitable Internet material being made available to minors. As I said before, I do not believe any senator or member in this place would advocate such a position. That is not a point of disagreement in this debate. We oppose the restriction of adult access to material which would generally be acceptable to reasonable adults. We oppose the restriction of adult access to Internet content where that content is available in different media. There is no reason for the kind of material that is currently available to adults in a different medium to be blocked on the Internet specifically.We have found very little evidence of the so-called overwhelming community concern claimed by government as the motivation for this legislation. In fact, evidence before the Senate committee indicated that the Australian public is far more concerned about inappropriate censorship. Evidence also indicates that extreme violence and racism are actually of greater concern than explicit sexual material. Internet users have a number of serious and legitimate concerns about Internet regulation, including hate speech, vilification, defamation, gambling, privacy, security, encryption and the legality of electronic transactions. These issues are not addressed in this bill.These issues have also not been debated at any length in the Senate select committee, which has responsibility for investigating issues to do with information technology. These issues were indicated by many witnesses as being of more concern than, for example, monitoring or clamping down on sexually explicit material. Perhaps we should be focusing on these areas in the burgeoning information economy as opposed to legislation of this nature.The government has not demonstrated any problems with the use of existing legislative provisions for dealing with inappropriate content, including section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914—which, of course, is a mechanism which is already in place for dealing with illegal or illicit content that may be online. The Democrats remain very concerned about the government's unwillingness to address some of the civil liberties issues raised by this bill. Restrictions on freedom of speech and imprecise enforcement provisions—in some cases privatising law enforcement functions—are serious and should not be dismissed lightly. This bill proposes a scheme of content regulation which treats the Internet very differently from analogous media. Content which is legal in one medium could actually be considered illegal in another.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Before the dinner break, I was explaining the Democrats' concerns about this bill, which fall into two categories: philosophical, that is, it may be a constraint on certain civil liberties in a democracy, such as freedom of speech and expression; and its workability, that is, the technical feasibility of the legislation. I was just concluding by articulating clearly to the chamber, for the record, the Democrats' concerns.We do not believe that Internet content regulation should result in a medium which is brought down to a lowest common denominator. Regulation must take into account the diversity of the Internet and the legitimate and responsible use of that medium by adults. If the bill is to proceed, it should include some guarantees of the privacy of both transactions and the personal details of Internet users. The possibility of logging transactions via proxies would result in a major invasion of privacy, in our opinion.The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the proposal to block overseas Internet content is technically flawed. There are major performance implications, and blocking is able to be circumvented. In our opinion, that would have major economic consequences. The Democrats are concerned about inappropriate and inadvertent blocking. This concern applies generally to filters, but of course it is of particular concern where blocking is compulsory. Blocking lists used in filters should be fully disclosed. Secret lists of which materials are to be blocked could lead to abuse, so that whole process must be transparent. Any censorship in a liberal democracy, as I have stated for the record, must be open and it must be accountable.The creation of an unenforceable law, such as the provisions blocking overseas content, is highly undesirable. The Democrats have numerous concerns about the drafting of the bill as it has been presented to the committee. These include broad discretions, harsh penalties, undefined terms and the possible abuse of provisions. We believe that self-regulation and co-regulation need to be more carefully investigated in the context of content regulation. Client-side filtering technologies and differentiated Internet services offer a workable alternative to blocking materials at the source or in transit. Client-side technologies need to be regulated to ensure that appropriate content is not inappropriately or inadvertently blocked. Users need to be fully aware of the assumptions and of the models that are being used to block content.The Democrats believe that adult responsibility should be a central component of any attempt to control the way in which young people use the Internet. The Australian Democrats would support a system of Internet content regulation that was based on empowerment of responsible adults rather than a command and control censorship mechanism. This would need to include education and the availability of client-side filtering technologies.The Democrats regret the sensationalist way in which the government has labelled critics of this proposed legislation, including a number of those organisations and witnesses that appeared before the Senate select committee. We believe that this bill has been prepared with undue haste and that consideration should be given to alternative proposals that are based on the education and the empowerment of users, as well as on an understanding of the responsibility of those supervising Internet access for young people. Certainly the Democrats agree that there is a need to address the issue of Internet content, but we have serious problems with the proposals currently before us and we do not believe that the hurried process has been appropriate.As I said, we have grave concerns about this legislation on two grounds: philosophical, that is, civil liberties questions; and the feasibility and workability of the legislation. I strongly urge senators to reject the legislation before us, to enter into an examination of what would be appropriate and to do it in a way that is not rushed and not part of a trading off process in terms of other legislation or of cross-trading on other issues. Then we could have a regulatory system that suited all users of the Internet but that did not quash, thwart, undermine or erode the burgeoning information economy in Australia.19:35:005202Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak as part of the opposition's response to what is a very quick bill—poorly drafted and brought in here with undue haste. A number of senators were on the committee examining this bill, and they brought down the report which was tabled earlier this month. I congratulate them on grappling with the number of issues in the short time they were given. The issues in the report only begin the debate; they do not conclude the debate.The opposition has already made it clear that we believe this bill is fundamentally flawed and that it should be significantly amended. My colleague Senator Bishop has indicated the moving of a second reading amendment that reflects our grave concerns about the sloppy way in which this bill has been brought forward and drafted. We have also indicated there will be a number of other technical amendments to the provisions. Some of the draconian provisions in this bill should be amended.We have outlined that we would support a review of the bill, if it were to be carried by the Senate, and a sunset clause that this bill would last no more than three years and that it would lapse unless the Senate and the Australian parliament reintroduced a bill after ministerial review and further debate. The opposition has made it clear that, in relation to the Internet and all the ancillary services it provides, it is crazy to try to define legislation to regulate the Internet forever and a day when the technology is changing so rapidly.Earlier today I heard some remarks by Senator Tierney from the government. We know Senator Tierney has a particular obsession about the fact that new technologies may actually make it easier for some people to see something that is, in his view, in bad taste or that does not fit into his moral view of the world. After listening to Senator Tierney I am of the mind that, when someone invented writing 3,000 or 4,000 years ago in the ancient Sumerian civilisation, he would have been up there saying, `This is terrible. It might be misused. Someone might write a word that I do not like.'When William Caxton and Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century, which enabled many more people to have access to information, of course it could have been misused and things could have been written that Senator Tierney might not like or might disapprove of. He, again, would have been one of those saying, `This is an evil development.' There were people who were opposed to the development of the printing press and its use to make widespread information available, to make our society in those days better informed. Senator Tierney probably disliked the invention of the telephone because it meant people could ring each other—they might say something over the phone in a form of words that he finds distasteful.The whole range of the electronic developments in communications this century—radio, television, cinema—has probably put great stress on Senator Tierney that somewhere someone might have seen or heard something that he finds distasteful or does not fit his moral view of the world. About 15 years ago we had the development of the fax—again, rapid information dissemination, better communication. Again, someone might put an inappropriate word or drawing through the fax that he does not like in his view of the world.Now we have the Internet, the most revolutionary form of direct communication between people that the world has yet seen. It has many opportunities to make the world a better place, to make it less likely that people will go to war because they will be better able to communicate. Societies will have a better understanding and information readily available about themselves. But the only obsession Senator Tierney and those of his ilk have is that there may be some inappropriate words, some nasty pictures or some nasty images that go on the Internet that do not fit with their moral view of the world.On every one of those developments in the last 4,000 years of new technologies that have improved communication in the world, there has always been, unfortunately, some antisocial activity that has gone with it. But, if we had stopped each of those developments, modern civilisation as we know it would never have developed.I also want to point out to Senator Tierney and others like him that the Internet is probably now the strongest proponent for the development of human rights and the end of dictatorships and thuggery by governments around the world than any other invention we have since had. It is now impossible for a bunch of thugs of the far Right or the far Left to run a government and keep their people ignorant of what is going on in the rest of the world. The Internet is the final step in breaking down the censorship barriers, the government censorship of ideas, the organisation of ideas that are allowed only if they are in favour of the government of the day or the ruling elite or clique.I remember in 1989 at the time of Tiananmen Square that the Chinese tried to ban or control access to the fax machine because they discovered that all round the world people at random, including people from this Parliament House, were faxing stories out of their local newspapers to Chinese fax machines showing that they knew what was going on and so those in the pro democracy movement knew that they were being supported. What did the Chinese government try to do? They tried to register every fax machine to make sure that only people whom they approved of would be able to use it. It all collapsed, of course, because they found that their economy could not run on the idea that they could control people who have access to these new communication ideas.It is the same with the Internet. The political thugs of the world now find it extremely difficult to control the ideas and information. In recent times in Yugoslavia Mr Milosevic has found that he cannot control all the information being circulated in his own country because others from without can circulate into that country via the Internet other stories that give a differing view from what Mr Milosevic wants.Some time ago, at the time of a previous censorship debate in Australia, a rather famous poster was put out. It said, `The experts agree censorship works,' and it listed Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini—they tried to use censorship to control their people. We have to accept that there is going to be some awkward or some nasty use of these modern forms of telecommunications and communication such as the Internet, but we should not throw it out. We should not stop it. We should not cut the cable. We should not try to censor it absolutely on the basis that we may be worried that somewhere someone will be upset about a particular image.What we find extraordinary about this piece of legislation is that it has been rushed into the parliament, badly drafted and badly explained, to meet some sort of agenda of the coalition government. One has only to turn to the second reading speech by the minister to see that. It goes on for pages trying to explain how these new measures will work to control antisocial, nasty things on the Internet. There are pages about how the complaints will be handled. There are pages about how the coregulation will work, about the codes of practice, about how you would lodge a notice with the ABA and about the different responsibilities of the ABA and the Office of Film and Literature Classification.Anyone who reads the second reading speech and believes that this legislation is going to be anything other than a bureaucratic nightmare is deluding himself or herself. Those people who want to use the Internet for antisocial reasons will not be controlled by this legislation—there are 100 ways around it—but the decent people trying to develop the Internet and to encourage the development of Australia as a clever country will be held down by it. They will be driven crazy by some of these useless, unworkable regulations. As I say, the second reading speech goes on for pages trying to explain how the legislation will work. It will not work simply; it will work in a convoluted, difficult way.We will be moving amendments to simplify the bill and in particular the sunset clause. My view is that if the sensible amendments—including the sunset clause—to be moved by the opposition are not accepted by the government then this bill should be rejected at the third reading. I believe that will overwhelm ingly be welcomed by the vast majority of Australians who do not like the idea that the state or a government with a narrow-minded view should interfere with their rights. I want to refer to the fact that, since the 1971 national conference of the Labor Party, we have had a very important clause to refer to when deciding the policy of the Labor Party in respect of censorship. This clause was drafted by Gough Whitlam, Don Dunstan and Lionel Murphy. It has stood the test of time in determining the balance between the rights of society to protect children, to protect itself from antisocial features or activities, and the rights of adults to be treated in a mature way. Just for the record, the clause reads:The censorship law to conform with the principle that adults be entitled to read, hear and see what they wish in private and in public, subject to adequate provisions preventing persons being exposed to unsolicited material offensive to them and preventing conduct exploiting, or detrimental to, the interests of children.This legislation does not achieve the objective of prohibiting material that is detrimental to children. If you read through the clauses of the bill, there are loopholes everywhere. It will not work. As the previous speaker Senator Stott Despoja said, we have to concentrate on empowering adults to understand what the Internet is about. We need to provide an education program so that adults know how to use the Internet in their homes and can prohibit their children from getting access to some of this awful stuff that may be available from time to time.It is crazy to try to force every Internet service provider and every Internet content provider into some sort of censorship regulated regime. It will not stop the nasty stuff being on the Internet. If we are concerned about antisocial material, illegal material, we should be looking at the operation of the Crimes Act. It is mentioned in the legislation. The Crimes Act deals with such things as—unpleasant as it is to mention them—bestiality and paedophilia. People should be warned that, if they are found receiving and using such material, they are subject to the Crimes Act. But the idea that you put a prohibition or a restriction on everybody because some small minority may misuse the Internet is the wrong way to go. It will not work. The joke about all of this is that, while we might try to ban, regulate and prohibit Australian Internet service providers and make it difficult for them to operate in Australia, the Internet will still allow people from overseas to send that awful material into this country and have it available. That is why we have to provide a program of education that will empower people and help them to understand what their obligations are. The idea that the state can do this in this particular case is fraught with danger. I think that, as a mature First World country which respects the right that all our adult citizens have responsibilities and accept them, that is the theme we should follow.It is unfortunate that from time to time a small minority of senators and House of Representatives members get themselves unduly excited and go barking up the wrong tree, paddling up the wrong creek, trying to hunt down in an obsessive way every untoward suggestion that they do not like. That is an authoritarian state, a state where ideas are regulated, which is what the ultimate outcome will be if this bill is passed. The legislation will not stop paedophilia, bestiality or child pornography being promoted on the Internet because it cannot stop it coming in from overseas. What is this government doing to handle the fact that the Internet is a worldwide system? The government tries to ignore that because it has a different agenda, appealing to a very small minority.We should be thankful that in this country we have access to the latest electronic developments in communications, which has meant that more people are being empowered. They can get access to information about the way their lives can be run and can run their own lives successfully; they can have access to information; they can tackle institutions that in the past may have ignored them—I think they are all to our advantage. As a First World country we should be accepting this as a major step forward and not seeing this as a threat.Every time there has been a development in the last several thousand years going right back to the invention of writing someone has always said, `This new development is undermining the social values of the then existing society.' As I have said before, there are plenty of examples where the new technologies have made it difficult for the thugs of the world, the political dictators of the world, to continue on in their own way. I say to those who have had an interest in political human rights that that is a wonderful development. I have served on the human rights subcommittee for some six years and I have been to countries where access to new technology has meant that people are being empowered and now know what is going on. I will conclude on one anecdote about this government's attitude to the dissemination of information. Two budgets ago this government cut the funding for Radio Australia. This was one of its most disgraceful decisions because it reduced a communications method for Australians to get information out to the world. I remember that as a member of the human rights delegation to Tibet in 1991 we discovered people in Tibet who were putting their lives at risk for human rights and the defence of Tibetan society. They knew we were there. Why? Because they listened to Radio Australia and to the BBC's overseas service. We were putting information into the local people in that society that would not get through the Chinese controlled media about what was happening in their own society and in their own country. One of the reasons why we should welcome new electronic developments is so that people who are under pressure in Tibet—or in a number of other countries where human rights are under threat—are given that opportunity for empowerment.This bill is a disgrace to this Australian government. It is being put forward in a tawdry manner. It will not achieve its end, except make us look like a standing joke amongst sensible people in the world who welcome the new electronic developments that will make the world a better place.19:52:005205Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill brings a new category into the regime administered by the Australian Broadcasting Authority: online services. Online services are being added to a regime that was established to regulate various types of broadcasting. But, online services are not broadcasts.The Internet is not television, it is not radio and it is not film. It can be all those things, but it is also much more. It is telephone, encyclopedia, meeting place and communication tool. It provides recreation, relaxation and stimulation. It breaks down barriers of distance between city and country. It connects people worldwide. It allows people to do business in ways they have never been able to before and with people they have not dealt with before. In effect, it makes everyone anywhere a potential customer. Clearly it has enormous potential.But, like any powerful technology, it will have its down side. In the case of the Internet, the downside is said to be the availability of offensive material and the exposure of children to that material. It is this offensive material and material unsuitable for children that the bill seeks to regulate. `What's wrong with that?' you may ask. There is no shortage of arguments about freedom of speech and parental responsibility for what children access. But I will leave it to others to make out those arguments. Instead of arguing against the aim of the bill, I will concentrate on its effect.The fundamental problem with this bill is that it seeks to treat the Internet as though it were just an extension of existing broadcasting media. In fact, it is different in a number of ways which make this approach to regulation unlikely to work. One difference is that television and radio, whether national, commercial, community or whatever, are broadcast from a single source. The fact that there are relatively few service providers—TV or radio stations—makes it quite feasible to regulate the content. Once a system of classification is in place, the regulator can classify the relatively small number of programs, and the broadcasters tend to stick within the rules because they have enormous investments to protect. The same goes for film. A relatively small number of films come onto the market and they are classified. It is not in the inter ests of distributors or cinemas to buck the system.The Internet is a different scene altogether. Instead of being a one-way broadcaster to receiver system, it is interactive. Instead of being a passive recipient, the `viewer' engages with the medium and with the material on the medium. The user of the Internet may be creating and consuming Internet content at the same time.This makes for a much more complex environment with a much more complex series of relationships between the players. With television or film, you have a relatively stable small group of producers and broadcasters making content for a mass market. With the Internet the barriers to entry are low, so the number of participants involved in creating and distributing material is enormous. Techniques which work quite comfortably for regulating a few major corporations no longer apply when dealing with such diversity. Also, these participants could be located anywhere in the world; this leads to further complication for would-be regulators.Television, radio and film can be regulated for content because there are a relatively small, finite number of distributors and high barriers to market entry. In effect, the regulator is dealing with manageable chunks of content to be distributed by a small number of key players. It is worth doing because the content is available to anyone who happens to turn on their TV.On the Internet we are not dealing with manageable amounts of content. The volume of material on the net is already overwhelming, and it is growing exponentially. We are not dealing with a small number of producers or distributors. In fact, anyone with a computer and a modem can be a producer, and anyone with a bit of know-how and a small capital outlay can be a distributor—an Internet service provider. In a sense, the bill recognises this. It does not seek to legislate to classify material before it can be put on the net. Instead, it seeks to put the onus on the distributors. But here again it is missing the point. The distributors are providing access to `the highway'.The highway is the information superhighway, but the analogy with the road system works quite well. There are far too many vehicles on the highway for anyone to check the contents of all vehicles and exclude material that is illegal. We do not make it mandatory for the department of main roads to search the cars and pockets of all drivers out on the road to ensure that no prohibited items are travelling on the road. Yet, this is essentially what we are doing when we put the onus on the Internet service provider.To ensure that prohibited items do not travel on the road, we say that it is illegal to drive with explosives or drugs. If information comes along that someone has those things in their vehicle or waiting for them at their destination, do we get the department of main roads to close down that stretch of road or the path to that destination? No, what we do is get the police to go after the real culprit.Essentially, that is what happens now with illegal material or activity on the Internet. It is illegal to make child pornography; it is illegal to distribute child pornography; and it is illegal to download or print off images of child pornography, whether coming from the Internet or anywhere else. The people doing these things are the culprits and it is they who should be prosecuted, not the people who provide the pathways that are used.The analogy more commonly employed is with other `carriers' like Telstra, Australia Post, couriers and so on. There is plenty of material that is unsuitable for children which gets sent through the post. Should it be checked by the carrier on the basis that it might get opened by a child looking at mummy and daddy's mail? The idea that the carrier should be held responsible for censoring the content of their customer's mail or phone calls is—as Michael Warby in the Canberra Times of 24 May, today, said—`absolutely outrageous and ludicrously expensive'.The bill will do exactly that for Internet service providers. The bill requires providers to `take down' material or block access to material that has been the subject of complaint. Service providers have 24 hours in which to comply, and the penalties for non-compliance are horrendous.The opportunities for abuse that this presents are manifold. Services of a particular provider could be targeted to drive them out of business. Even without such malicious intent, many smaller providers will simply go out of business because of the extra workload or because they are unable to comply in time and will get hit with big fines. Some will just go quietly out of business rather than get involved in the complexities of meeting the demands of increased regulation.The Internet is notoriously anarchic. This is one of its great strengths. For many of the participants, this attempt at censorship will cause them to move overseas to more congenial regulatory environments. This applies particularly to operators of host sites. Why would anyone host a site in Australia, where regulation requires hands-on management of content, when they could do the same thing offshore and not have to worry about paying for classification or monitoring of content?The government says the measures are subject to the proviso that they be technologically feasible and commercially viable. But what is commercially viable for Telstra Big Pond may drive smaller players out of business—and could it be that this is what they want? Is this perhaps the intention? Is the government looking after its mates at the big end of town? Surely not.There is no shortage of industry groups that point out that blocking of content will not work. The CSIRO report which has already been referred to in debate concludes that content blocking implemented purely by technological means will be ineffective. Work-arounds will quickly be devised for any technologically based blocking system and distributed over the Internet instead. This is hardly surprising. The Internet was developed to provide communication in the aftermath of nuclear war. If it would survive nuclear war it would certainly survive attempts by Australian regulators to block off bits of it.The bill employs two methods of restricting access. The first is a blacklist of banned sites. If a complaint is made about a site, an interim take-down notice is issued and the provider has to close off access to that site and similar material. The site is listed and all providers have to refuse access to the site. This means that any effort to access sites on the Internet will require the provider to check that the site is not on the banned list. By putting another stage in the process of accessing legitimate sites, we slow down the operation of the Net and therefore add to the costs. This really is like shooting yourself in the foot. Every business transaction, every research query and every visit to a game site will be checked against the banned list. The effect will be to make Australia a slightly slower place to do business or to study.The second way of restricting access is the use of filtering technology. Filtering technology has an important part to play in management of the Internet. It is particularly useful for families who want to limit children's access. It probably does not matter to a particular end user if the filter takes out access to breast cancer sites at the same time as it takes out access to rude bits. But the use of crude filters—and they are necessarily crude—should not be expected of Internet service providers. People who do need access to material that triggers key word filtering will not be able to get it; at least they will not get it easily. They will have to play around with filter evading technology or just move to an Internet service provider based offshore—more loss of business to the Australian economy and the industry.The arguments can be summed up quite simply. First, it will not work. The Internet is resistant to censorship, which it interprets as damage and finds a way around. Second, it will be expensive. This applies to the added cost of access, the management of blacklists and filters, and the economic cost of decreased competition as small players are driven from the market. It also applies to increased costs for the end user in both time and money. Third, it is a blunt instrument. In attempting to block offensive material, much of value will also be unavailable. Fourth, it isolates Australia. Canada has just concluded a 10-month study of Internet regulation and has decided against new laws. The company Australia will keep in censoring the Internet is not good company.These arguments have all been widely canvassed elsewhere—at the Senate committee, in the minority reports of the committee, and in correspondence which all senators will have received on this bill. But there is another problem which I do not believe has had the attention it deserves. The bill actually has the potential to militate against prosecution of the producers and users of offensive material. Under the proposed regime, someone complaining of unsuitable material would complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which would issue a banning notice. The address is then circulated to all Internet service providers, which would be required to block the site. Essentially, the problem then becomes one of `out of sight—out of mind'. Note it is `out of sight' not `out of site'. The site is still there; you just cannot see it in Australia.What happens to, say, ongoing police investigations of the site? What happens to efforts to track down the people behind it? Sure, there is the possibility for police to satisfy the ABA holding off taking action which might prejudice a criminal investigation. But that assumes a degree of continuous information sharing with all Australian police forces and the ABA, which is quite unprecedented. The police would need to know all the sites the ABA were considering banning, or the ABA would need to know all the investigations currently being undertaken by police. Either way, it would be a logistic nightmare. In the meantime, pornographers and would-be bomb makers carry on with their activities. We do not have policing resources to waste like that. The efforts should be aimed at prosecuting offenders, not imposing constraints on the carrier of the signal.The final point I wish to make on this bill is that it neglects a deep-seated belief that it is the individual who has responsibility for what they do and what they see on the Internet. It is not the business of government to get on the Net in a heavy-handed way to try to dictate what we can and cannot see or do. It is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are not accessing unsuitable material. It is not the role of government to be the parents of the rest of us. That is effectively what this bill does. It treats Australians like children and tells us that government knows best. Government, in this case, may not know best. Government has got it badly wrong on this one and, if the bill is passed by the Senate, the Internet itself will prove just how wrong. That is the nature of the beast. In the meantime, Australia will be held up as a laughing stock, and Senator Alston is, I believe, accurately portrayed as the King Canute of our time, blithely trying to turn back the tide.I would like to indicate that the Greens (WA) will be supporting the second reading amendment which is, I believe, to be moved by Senator Bishop.20:07:005209Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Senate Select Committee on Information Technology was re-formed with the specific intention of dealing with the issue of Internet censorship. Its structure was biased towards government opinions from the outset and, regardless of the numerous submissions which demonstrated the unworkability of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , the report that the committee produced unsurprisingly concurred with the government's initial position. This contrasted sharply with the Labor opposition's analysis and the views presented in our minority report.In this debate there are two primary interest groups: those who are online, notably, the information `haves', and those who are not online, the information `have nots'. Despite three years of governance under the coalition, the divide between these two groups in our society has become only wider. They have professed that their legislation will make the Internet a safe zone for minors—a zone free from pornography, free from bomb-making recipes and free from other social nasties. They have led those people who are not online to believe that technological solutions currently exist which would implement these changes without compromising the quality or delivery of online content suitable for viewing by minors. In doing this, however, the government has permanently marginalised the online community.Through the placing of the onerous burden of this legislation on the sector instead of empowering end users to deal with the accessibility and nature of online content the government has alienated the online constituency. On the one hand, the actions of this government, in directing the debate at social values rather than at technical feasibility, have created a situation where it has been prepared to allow very little attention to be given to the Australian community with hardly any political debate at all about the social implications of the Net—the social policy that so fundamentally underpins where we need to go forward as a society in relation to the Internet—and at the same time it has appealed to this same group of people, who mostly need to learn about what these implications are and, most importantly, to be given the opportunity to participate in an active and comprehensive way in the information society. The government is trying to have it both ways. The other side of the argument is technical feasibility. Anyone who is involved in the political debates surrounding the Internet and its implications knows how easy it is to hide behind technical jargon to baffle those who have an interest in social policy.With respect to this bill, the government has chosen to move in a direction where it appeals to those in the community who are not full participants in the online debate. However, it seems to reassure them with a bill that is technically flawed. The ALP's position in response to this strategy has been one of damage control. We have put forward amendments that will seek to make this bill at least workable and honest in the first instance, recognising that the government's intention is not able to be fully implemented by virtue of this legislation. The ALP's position of damage control has arisen out of our sense of social responsibility towards those in our community, be they online or not. From the start of not only this debate but our period in opposition to this coalition government we have continually stated the need for the issue of equity of access to the Internet and to new information technologies to be at the forefront of these debates, not at the back-end where this coalition government is so intent on placing them.On the day that this bill was introduced, a virtual storm erupted in cyberspace, and the potential amongst the Australian community for an online democracy—or cyberdemocracy —was recognised. This followed the pattern of international debates around the issue of censorship online, and many Australians seized the opportunity for the first time to take part directly in the political debate that ensued. The floodgates opened and emails poured forth, and every citizen was given real-time access to his or her political representatives. The hierarchy of political lobbyists versus community members and their accessibility to politicians was completely dismantled.In contrast with the government's lack of consultation on this bill with the online community, Labor has actively sought the opinions of Internet users. On my own site we posted a survey which asked certain questions. Do you support the intent of the bill? Do you not support the intent of the bill? Do you support the intent of the bill but not support the methodologies proposed in the legislation? The responses to these were overwhelmingly against the position that the government had presented in the bill but, interestingly, there was not outright opposition to the intent, as the government would have many in this place believe. In fact, the online community is concerned about the availability of unsuitable material to minors in this country, and they indicated that to me clearly.This group of informed voters have the knowledge, the expertise, the experience and the insight to know that the government's proposals—the technical back-end to its bill—were completely unworkable and as such a con for those in the community who were seeking reassurance that they would be protected. Overwhelmingly, the online constituency does not support the government's approach. What they do support is the position put forward by Labor. They support the empowerment of end users. That means education, the opportunity to participate in the information society and the ability for end users to take control of the situation and make decisions according to their social values and to choose how to raise their children.However, with respect to this bill, it is clear that the government is charged with a moral conservatism that has presented itself in this chamber in a very narrow way. It has presented itself amidst a cynical government strategy to bring forth a bill for debate that the committee was hardly given the time to explore. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 has had the fastest conceivable passage in this place, particularly in the context of some of the major debates confronting the federal parliament, including the GST, Telstra and, of course, the appropriation bills relating to the budget that has just been handed down.Throughout this debate, the Liberal government has used provocative language and attempted to portray the public debate as being either pro-porn or anti-porn. This attempt at dumbing down the debate and manipulating the public through emotive claims like, `Your children will be exposed to drugs, paedophilia and bomb making unless this bill is passed,' is both condescending and foolish. Labor will not be drawn into the government's spin. We have approached this bill, since its introduction, with the belief that if the government's aim is to restrict the access of minors to unsuitable online content then the best and most effective way to do this is through informed and educated control of the Internet at end user level.The approach that the government has used in relation to the online services bill has meant that the cultural implications of the use of filtering technologies and the impacts of these in relation to civil liberties have been completely ignored. Current filtering techniques are wide open to what we could call `collateral damage', and that is the term that is used to describe the inadvertent blocking of appropriate Internet content. This situation arises when key words, such as `breast', that are often used to identify pornographic or other sites unsuitable for viewing by minors trigger the blocking of sites which may in fact contain community or health information of high educational value on issues such as breast cancer.Since the inception of this bill, I have had numerous representations made to me on behalf of a range of community based organisations that deal with issues such as HIV-AIDS, cancer of the breast or prostate, and legal and illicit drug information provision. One common concern that has been expressed to me by all of these groups is the potential that this bill will lead to the blocking of access of minors and other users to material which is highly educative and has the potential to save lives. Representations were made to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies with respect to this. In particular, the statement made by the Australian Council for Lesbian and Gay Rights best illustrates this point. They said:The ACLGR believes that the application of these proposals will result in entrenched inappropriate blocking and deletion of information of interest and assistance to the lesbian and gay community. We are concerned about blocking of access to information that is health and welfare related.Labor has long held the view that the social challenges presented by the Internet need far more attention than the compressed and flawed inquiry that we have been involved in with respect to this bill. The very issue of convergence of media, computing and telecommunications and its social implications with regard to content warrant a far deeper analysis from a social policy perspective than this inquiry.How typical it is that in the midst of all of these interesting debates—and there have been speakers in this chamber prior to me this evening who have alluded to this in some depth—the only time that we have a comprehensive debate about the Internet and content and its social implications is in the context of a censorship bill. The government lends itself to extended rhetoric about the importance of the economic growth of electronic commerce and what that will bring to Australia's industry, to our providers of businesses and services and to the global economy—you are all familiar with the rhetoric—yet the first legislative debate we have here is not about digital signatures and fundamental mechanisms to facilitate the global economy and Australia's participation in it but is about censoring the Net.I believe the impact of this bill will grow in the way that the bill imposes itself upon what should be one of the most exciting and growing industry sectors and social movements occurring in the country at this point in time. What seems to be a bill that is somewhat a constraint in relation to the presentation of content unsuitable for minors has effectively positioned Australia as a pariah in the global online community. Why? Far more at this stage, Australia has now given the global online community the perception that it is not interested in the potential of this new medium. We have given the perception that, in fact, a moral conservative agenda is far more important to economic growth and social expansion. We have given the perception to the global community that Australia is backward looking and is retrograde in its attempt to participate in policy development in the new century. Through this bill, we have now given the perception that we have a government that, above all else, is prepared to compromise our very future for a short-term and politically expedient agenda.How sad a day it is that we find ourselves in this position. How sad a day it is that we have come to this point when even the Internet industry was progressing rapidly towards an outcome with respect to its code. It was not like the government had to operate in an environment of complete inertia. But it chose, knowingly, to move forward in a way which would alienate the sector which, it argued, it was trying to provoke into some action. It is worth while reflecting on some evidence given to the committee. I think it sums up this point. Patrick Fair of IIA had the following to say:We were expecting a gentler approach which allowed the code to do its work without very onerous penalties and without a heavy-handed corralling of the conduct of our members. This is another example of heavy-handed legislation working against small businesses, finding more red tape, more special conditions and more difficult technical requirements which will make the efficient growth of the Internet and electronic services in this country less feasible. The IIA, like Labor, recognises the fact that this bill will have a negative impact on the emerging e-commerce industry in Australia and on our ability to compete internationally in the provision of Internet based services. I quote from Mr Marzbani's evidence:If you wanted to hurt the Internet, and you wanted to hurt Internet electronic commerce, this would be one of the best ways to start.If this bill passes it will be a disaster for the Internet industry in this country. Again, Mr Marzbani said:Since the nascent Internet e-commerce market could play a very important place in the future economy of Australia, even the slightest obstacle to Australia's participation in the global Internet e-commerce markets at this critical point in time should be avoided at all costs.These points reinforce my earlier statements about the critical timing of Australia's participation in the global electronic environment. Greg Taylor, the Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that this bill:. . . will create congestion and bottlenecks which will impede the flow of Internet traffic. It will increase costs and threaten the economic viability of ISP's. It will reduce the freedom of all adult Australians to choose what they read. It will turn Australia into a paternalistic regime with characteristics on a par with countries like China, Burma and Iran.More than anything else, I believe that this bill demonstrates the stratified nature of social experience within the federal parliament. Representation for those in our community who have their comfort zone online is minimal, highlighting in the first instance a generation gap that, with each passing day, isolates young people in this country more than ever. It is Australia's young people for whom the Internet is a social and cultural experience. They will view this legislation and this government's approach with complete contempt, as it deserves. The Net is not something to be constrained or controlled. It is not evil. It is a tool for social progression and, to young Australians and many other online citizens, the Internet is the epitome of freedom and offers the promise of a new dignity both with respect to political activity and the democracies of the future. (Time expired)20:27:005212Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I hardly know where to start tonight. We have had the most extraordinary and colourful contributions. They almost belie description. We had Senator Schacht mentioning Tiananmen Square and the tragedies of that, Luddites and political thuggery. He was suggesting that we were stepping back into the medieval times. We had Senator Margetts invoking King Canute. I can only suggest that if Senator Margetts had come to any of the hearings she might have been a little more informed about some of the questions she raised and some of the answers that lay in the evidence. We had Senator Lundy discussing the total unworkability and technically flawed nature of the bill, invoking Iran, China and Burma, and calling it a disaster and totally unworkable.If the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 is all of these things, why are those opposite so strongly opposed to it? If it is not going to work, it is technically flawed and its intention cannot be fully delivered—as Senator Lundy said tonight—why are they so energetically opposed to it? Why did Senator Lundy, on her email, invoke cooking up a cyberstorm? If this bill is undeliverable in its current form, why was all this energy invoked tonight and on other occasions over the last few weeks to suggest that the bill is going to fail?This legislation has been introduced as a result of years of consultation between governments and the community—going back to the previous government—on the best way to manage the regulation of this developing technology. On this occasion we are talking about the best way to ensure that the Internet—I agree that it is probably the most revolutionary piece of new technology since the invention of the telephone—is appropriately regulated so that all users are protected from some of the more obnoxious aspects of the content available on the Internet.Let us reconsider and reflect for a moment on the evidence that was presented by the Eros Foundation. What Fiona Patten told the committee was that she, along with many others in the community, did not believe that what is regulated offline should not be regu lated online. When we are invoking evidence about doom, gloom, disaster and the sky falling in, it is important to take into account that some social libertarians gave evidence to the committee which in principle agreed with the position that the government is trying to take here—to protect families from some of the more obnoxious aspects of the Internet.There are very few families in Australia who would disagree. Young Media Australia, which claims to speak for hundreds of families, agreed very strongly. Despite some of the quite fanciful contributions already made today about the way in which the Internet will be damaged irreparably by this legislation, there is absolutely no doubt that Australian families are very reassured about the intent of this legislation. I wish that Senator Schacht had been around when the material was being published about the home pages of those two young murderers at the Littleton High School. Any parent who knew that their child had access to those two home pages would feel justifiably reassured by the knowledge that, in this country when this bill is passed, they need not worry about their children's access to the Internet.This bill will enable the online environment to operate as a three-way partnership between parents, government and industry, with parents taking a reasonable degree of responsibility and the industry doing the same, against an appropriate legislative framework. Most importantly, this legislation provides clear guidelines for the protection of all Australians from illegal and highly offensive material.As chair of the Select Committee on Information Technologies which took evidence on this legislation, I had absolutely no doubt that emerging technologies can be accommodated within this framework. As witnesses explained to committee members, what is not possible today may well be possible tomorrow. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee reflected the vigorous debate which has been taking place within the Internet community about this legislation. That opposition has been well canvassed tonight and due to time constraints I do not propose to traverse it again here.One of the points that has been made tonight repeatedly by previous speakers has been the suggestion that parents should be responsible for the regulation of Internet access for children. Goodness me, I know many families whose children aged five to seven have access to a computer and are highly computer literate but where their parents have not yet mastered that skill. It is unreasonable to suggest that those parents should take total responsibility for what their child watches, whether they are five, seven, 10 or 15, when they themselves have not yet had the opportunity to master that skill. It totally overlooks the intent of this legislation.There is little doubt that the bill covers a dynamic area of community development and as it continues to evolve the government may need to revisit this legislation. But it is a genuine attempt to recognise that this technology cannot continue to operate in its currently unregulated form and that the legislation we are debating today could well form the basis for complementary legislation in other countries where communities are equally concerned about what can be so easily accessed on the Net today in Australia.20:34:005213Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The opposition of the Greens to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 comes not just as a result of the provisions in the legislation but more particularly as a result of the failure of the process. The extraordinary diversity of community views about not only content on the Internet and elsewhere available to the public but how restriction—if any at all—should be levied was not able to express itself in the short time available. There is a failure of political process here. I think the government, particularly Senator Alston, believed that bringing on the inquiry and this piece of legislation and giving it precedence over a whole range of major pieces of legislation would garner the support of the independent senators in the run-up to the debate about the GST package and the sale of Telstra. I have said as much in this chamber before. Interestingly, Senator Harradine has pointed out that, if that was the government's aim, they were going about it the wrong way. I note that he is apparently, up until now, not contributing to the second reading debate. He is indicating that the bill does not meet his requirements.So we have a failure of political motive in rushing this legislation—poorly prepared, poorly canvassed as far as the Australian public is concerned—into the chamber for the wrong reasons. It is a failure of political process. We ought to stand against that sort of failure and political expediency, particularly where it does not work—and it manifestly has not worked in this situation. I join with earlier speakers in saying that the Greens have got concerns about the invasion of particularly the minds of youngsters with untoward material, in particular gratuitous and repeated violence. In this country we are under an appalling avalanche of violent material not least from the United States, which has a different culture to Australia. If we could do something about that repetitive, unrelenting and gratuitous violence dished up as entertainment, we would be advancing the interests of this society far better than in this poor quality attempt to censor in particular sexual licentiousness.That is the motivating force behind the government's move and Senator Alston's move to trammel the Internet. As you will know, Mr Acting Deputy President, a similar hasty and poorly thought-out effort in Canada is now on the rocks because it does not work adequately. Australia ought to take the lead in innovation in this area and reflect the views of the wider community instead of trying to repeat mistakes that have been made elsewhere.Tomorrow I will be bringing in a motion for the Senate's consideration on what to do about Internet gambling. I want to make sure that we get the process right here and that there is time for the public to have input into this matter. If we are to have adequate input, we need to have adequate information going in front of it. I am hoping that the Senate will weigh very carefully my proposal for an inquiry which will not be truncated or limited by political expediency but which will go out and get maximum return from the public to see what we can do about limiting the deleterious effects of gambling.I am not talking here about banning gambling on the Internet. I am talking about making sure that it does not create undue damage and hardship to individuals and to families in the Australian community. I want to make sure that we have a full and open debate about the potential for overseas gambling enterprises, legal and illegal—which are being blocked from establishing themselves in the United States, for example—to set up in Australia where we have no control on Internet gambling services and, de facto, are giving a message of encouragement to gambling houses in the United States to come here and set up. That circumstance requires that we take action, but it also requires that we get it right, that it be an agenda of its own, set because we are concerned to contain the damage from Internet gambling which effectively brings casino facilities to the living rooms of Australians with computer facilities. We want to ameliorate the damage and not allow it to go willy-nilly without a community consensus on how it might best be controlled.Let me come back to the legislation before us. Because I am speaking late in this second reading debate, I will not repeat the list of concerns that other speakers on this side of the house have. As senators will have heard, they are many and they are matters of great importance. I suppose I could sum it up by saying that this process, because it has not been well thought out, opens up the ability of some people in our society to quite unwarrantedly intrude on the rights of other people in our society—I am talking about adults here—to see, hear, read and watch what they wish. My attention has been drawn to a story on page 21 of today's Daily Telegraph headed `Lesbian soap plot ill-timed'. The story says:A lesbian relationship on the TV soap Breakers is under investigation after an MP complained to the Australian Broadcasting Authority.As you will know, the Australian Broadcasting Authority is intimately involved—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—No pun intended!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is right. The ABA is intimately involved in matters to do with this legislation that we are now dealing with. The article goes on:Liberal Senator Karen Synon—from Victoria—wrote to the ABA querying the screening of the locally produced Network Ten drama at 3.30 weekday afternoons when young children may be switching over from Play School.Senator Synon was concerned the depiction of a lesbian relationship as normal during children's viewing times was inappropriate. She asked the ABA to provide her with information on its guidelines for children's timeslots.And so on. Horror of horrors, this article also says:Apart from Lucy and Kelly's lesbian affair, another regular Breakers character, Vince, is gay.Here we have the opinion of somebody on the other side of the house that lesbian and gay relationships are not part of what our society should see as normal. I take the totally contrary point of view and say that such relationships are an absolutely normal part of the spectrum of our society, and a very important contributing part of Australian society as it is. It adds a great deal through the wonder of the variety of life that such relationships bring to society—and, of course, it involves freedom for those individuals who are in lesbian or gay relationships.To want to censor such relationships as part of the spectrum being depicted on television programs—we are not talking here about licentious or lascivious presentations but ordinary presentations of people going about loving relationships—is to confuse the whole issue of what censorship is about. That intrudes on the right of other people to see the spectrum of society as they would want to, which is usual, and censors the very make-up of people. I cannot help but feel that part of the government motivation behind this bill is to move in and censor what other people may consider as their right, as part of their life, as part of their freedom and liberty as Australians. It is being done in a ham-fisted way for all the reasons that are being presented in this debate.It would have been much better had the Select Committee on Information Technologies had time to get a full input from the full range of Australians interested in this matter and to have come up with a much better formulation which enabled those people in society who want censorship to have it but which left those people who want to be free of censorship to be free of it. In so many ways this legislation intrudes upon the rights of the latter group to service the intrusive impulses of the former group. That is why I do not support it.There is something to be learnt from this faulty process. I hope that when we move to look at online gambling there will be a much better process. The perils for our community in not holding back the enormous impulse by big gambling houses—legal and illegal—to take people for a ride through Internet gambling is a problem of greater urgency for our community and a problem of great importance for our parliament to be taking up. All these matters should of course be dealt with. I think the priorities are wrong here and the outcome is not adequate in this situation.I know there are amendments to be put forward. The Greens will be taking each of those amendments and evaluating them to see what we can do to improve on this unacceptable legislation.I finish by saying that this process of Senate scrutiny has not been becoming and has not been adequate. That is simply because it was not given adequate time to take in what the public, the experts and the overseas experience could have given to a committee to come up with a much better resolution than the one put forward here in this legislation by the government. I will be entering into the committee stage of this debate. I do not know what the outcome will be. I hope the Senate turns this legislation down, frankly, and that we get it right before we deal with it. Failing that, we will be doing everything we can to remove the more deleterious aspects of this legislation in the ensuing debate.20:47:005215Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—First of all, let me deal with that issue Senator Brown raised—the issue of Internet gambling. Senator Brown does not have to lecture the rest of us about that. We have been very concerned about that for some considerable time. In fact, I have had discus sions with persons from various states in Australia on that particular matter. It is even more important now that the recent announcement has been made by a particular group that they are getting into the online business. That is a matter that has been raised and it is under active consideration by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. Senator Brown should know that discussions have been taking place on the Select Committee on Information Technologies committee about the best form of words for the reference so that it will be effective. So there will be an inquiry by the information technologies committee.People have been saying that it is very important for that committee to address a range of things. That committee has addressed a range of things, including the question of privacy. That is a matter on which the chair of the committee has prepared a draft chair's report. We have not been inactive in those matters, and I would hope that our meeting on Thursday will be able to settle on terms of reference for an Internet gambling reference.At this hour of the night I am not going to examine some of the contributions that have been made here because I do not think they deserve a serious response, particularly that of Senator Schacht. I recommend that people read Senator Schacht's contribution to this debate.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—It was laughable.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It certainly was laughable. If somebody wants a public discourse on the principles of censorship or on other matters that he raised, then let us have a public discourse, a meeting of minds if that is possible, but to suggest that what is being proposed here, with the best will in the world, is going back to the Luddites or to the beginning of the printing press and so forth demeans debate in this chamber. My view is that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , if enacted, will be an improvement on the current largely unregulated environment and thus deserves support.I hope people understand that, over many years, ministers from both sides of politics have been saying that something needs to be done about the Internet in respect of the types of prohibited material that are envisaged in this sort of legislation. I remember that when Mr Lavarch was Attorney-General he made a very strong statement as a result of the concerns that were expressed to him over a considerable period of time. Other ministers have also expressed concern about this matter. Nevertheless, there are suggestions that nothing should be done about it because nothing can be done about it. I think that is a defeatist attitude. While people are entitled to contribute to that attitude, it is strange indeed to give as a reason for doing nothing the fact that something is impossible, especially given advancements in filtering technologies.There has been an extraordinary outcry from certain representatives of the Internet industry. Having read what was in the Financial Review of two Saturdays ago, I am disinclined to believe much that some of the people in the Internet industry say. It was unbelievable. I invite honourable senators to read it. If they believe what some people in the Internet industry say from here on in, they are very gullible indeed.Given the number of announcements that have been made over a period of time, the Internet industry must have expected that something would be done by government. Not only that, but the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies and its predecessors have, since 1993, been having inquiries about this matter. They have made two or three reports. Surely the Internet industry cannot say that it was not warned or did not know that there was a need for regulation in the absence of its doing nothing about it. Because industry has not done anything about it, our homes are invaded by groups—including pimps and prostitutes—pushing their porn, causing parents a great deal of concern. They are exploiting the medium in order to make a huge amount of money. That is something that we should not ignore; nor, I believe, should the Internet organisations ignore it.I have very great concerns about some aspects of the operational effectiveness of this measure, but I do believe that something needs to be done to prevent extremely violent material, pornographic material, illegal material and refused classification material being accessed in the home environment. We need to protect children. The bill falls considerably short of the recommendations made by our committee and its predecessors. Representatives of the Internet industry should have realised this, because they gave evidence to us. In 1995, in its first recommendation, our committee said: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.That was essentially repeated in the first recommendation of June 1997. This measure before us does not follow the recommendations in respect of either the content to be regulated or the method of regulation.I turn to a submission made to the committee's most recent inquiry. That submission states that the bill places too much reliance on the willingness of the Internet industry to self-regulate and on the capacity of the Australian Broadcasting Authority to provide timely and effective intervention if self-regulation fails. It also says that the stronger measures that are required include the establishment of a specific online content regulator that holds a direct relationship with Internet content and service providers, perhaps through a licensing system. I have a very strong view that such a licensing system would be more effective than that proposed under the legislation. As a condition of licensing, certain obligations could be imposed upon the industry and enforced.Surely Internet service providers do have an obligation to their customers. For example, surely they ought to have an obligation to provide their customers with filtering technologies both at PC level and in the carriage infrastructure. It may well be argued—and I hope it is argued—by the minister that is the very thing that the government believes ought to be part of the code of practice provided for in the legislation. So it ought to be. If that is so, and if there is cooperation, maybe there will not be a need at some time in the future to impose licences and licence conditions on the industry.There are a number of other things to be considered by the committee which have not been considered by some of those making contributions, not the least of which is that we have to have regard to the fact that you are going to have a convergence of technologies very soon. Broadcasting operators, for example, are expecting to integrate Internet and digital broadcasting technologies to deliver entertainment content into the home. Another example of convergence of broadcasting telecommunications and gambling can be seen in the nationwide promotion of `win a million dollars' television programs. The programs provide for viewers to enter the competition by dialling a 1900 number. Highly lucrative entry fees are imposed in the form of a charge on the telephone bill, which is then shared between the broadcaster and the telecommunications company.There are a whole range of possibilities with the convergence of technologies, so I suppose the decision of the government in respect of prohibited content and potentially prohibited content to relate that to what is provided in at least one area—subscription television—is not such a bad idea. The government does have something of a non sequitur, if you like, in that with Australian provided R-rated material the bill requires an adult verification procedure, whereas that is not so for material coming from overseas. Frankly, something needs to be done about that so that we can move towards dealing with that problem.I would also mention in passing that I am very concerned about the fact that there are a huge number of interactive violent computer games on the Internet. I think the OFLC must have a very good look at some of the very violent games they are allowing through and that would thus continue to be allowed in the Internet area.At the end of the day, I will support this measure, but I have to say that parents should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the passage of this bill. It is an improvement. I congratulate the government for taking the initiative. It is not the way that I would necessarily have gone but the government, in its wisdom, has decided that this is the way to go. I repeat that I am going to support the measure. I do congratulate the minister and the government for trying to do something about a matter which is of considerable concern to a large number of persons in Australia, particularly parents.Parents must be reminded that they and others responsible for children will need to exercise vigilance. They should be empowered to do so through a massive education campaign and through technological support. I agree with what Senator Mark Bishop said in respect of this. There needs to be a massive education campaign. Obviously the industry itself, in developing the codes of practice, should have that as a very high priority. If we were to have legislation, properly amended, plus a massive education campaign in conjunction with effective filtering technologies, it would ultimately ensure an environment in which computer use would grow. It would also put a damper on the exploiters of the Net.Finally, I have to repeat what I have said on a number of occasions: the ABA may not be the appropriate institution to carry forward this particular measure. The ABA is a passive regulator. Again today the ABA said something disconcerting for the structure of our society. I doubt the news media got it wrong. I would be interested to see what the ABA chair has to say about a statement from an ABA spokesman which appeared in an article by Emma-Kate Symons in the Daily Telegraph today. I digress. The ABA really is on trial, and so is the Internet industry. I hope there is cooperation to see that this measure does work.21:07:005218Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—in reply—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. As a starting point, there seems to be quite a substantial disconnect between the attitudes of the community at large and some elements of the industry in particular, and Senator Harradine referred to what could only be described as a furious counter-reaction from some people. But it is very interesting to note that there has been little or no criticism from the community at large.I have not seen letters to the editor complaining about this initiative. Indeed, I have seen surveys out of the US—and I imagine they would not be much different here—showing that something like 80 per cent of parents expect action to be taken in respect of the Internet to protect their children from unsafe or offensive material and, of those, around 63 per cent are Internet users. So it is not the case at all that it is only those who do not understand the technology who have the concerns; it is very much those who are familiar with it who recognise the very serious problems that are inherent in a new medium.One of the things we ought to be trying to do is to promote the safe use of the Internet because of all the enormous social and economic benefits that flow from the new technology. I am sure there is some hesitation on the part of children and parents to get further immersed in the Internet whilst they can keep surfing and coming across, either accidentally or on purpose, material that any right thinking citizen would regard as unacceptable.I might have mentioned this before, but I saw a vox pop in the Herald Sun a few weeks ago where five kids, 21 or younger, said the government ought to do something about pornography on the Internet. Several of them were particularly concerned about their younger brothers and sisters having access to that material. We should not for a moment be misled into thinking that somehow this is a narrow view of some in society. I think it is overwhelmingly the mainstream view.There are some elements in the industry that also recognise that something needs to be done. It is not just in Australia or America; it is happening all around the world where these sorts of concerns are very similar in their expressions because the technology is almost identical. Here in Australia there are some civil libertarians not condescending to detail—and I have read a number of articles in newspapers by people who seem to thrive on getting hysterical. The high-water mark of it in the parliament is someone like Senator Schacht, who is a classic example of why he is no longer a serious frontbencher. He does not do the homework. He is interested in the politics of trotting out why these things are horrific and that no-one has paid enough attention, but it was abundantly clear from his contribution that he has not looked in any detail at some of the technical aspects or how you ought to go about tackling these problems, because his starting and finishing point was that nothing ought to be done. That is a very big cop-out.It is a major social problem. People expect us to do what we can, and this bill represents the government's best attempt to tackle what is a very important issue. We all recognise that technology is constantly changing. There may well be new applications in the near future that might either help or hinder the chase. But the fact is that we have tried to design an organic system that will allow for codes of practice to be developed by industry to respond to new technologies and implement those technologies in such a way that it will not cripple the industry but will provide the maximum level of protection that can be made available.These issues have not been raised in haste. The bill has been brought forward after some three years or more of discussions within the industry. The Internet Association has been conscientiously developing codes of practice, but I think it is fair to say it would concede it has not made a great deal of progress. As always, what does tend to happen is that some of the major players, the large ISPs, who have the facilities and access to the latest technologies are more than happy to sign on—indeed are more than happy to promote their own filtering devices and hopefully to flog software packages to all and sundry—but others simply see this as an additional industry impost which they would like to avoid, if possible.That is not a position that we think is responsible. We have, therefore, put down a framework which we think will allow for the necessary initiatives to be taken by the industry in the first instance, but we do not expect the ABA to be a passive regulator. We do have powers contained in the bill which will enable the relevant minister to ultimately require adherence to codes of practice and, therefore, to ensure that everyone is caught up where that becomes necessary. I accept the proposition that everyone is on trial. In a sense, the technologies are on trial, but this parliament should not be, as long as it espouses the appropriate principles and does its best to ensure that technology serves those principles.There has been some suggestion that the penalties are too harsh, but there is a graduated range of penalties, and we certainly do not expect that people will be copping the maximum in the first instance. Certainly, one would expect some teething difficulties, and undoubtedly there will be some problems with implementation in the first instance. We expect those to be accommodated sympathetically but, at the same time, where it becomes apparent that some players in the industry are simply thumbing their noses at the new regime, we would expect appropriate penalties to be applied.Civil liberties arguments are usually expressed in the abstract, and they were again here tonight. What we have simply done as a starting point is to say that what is legal in the offline world ought to be legal in the online world, but that where illegal or offensive material is proscribed in the offline world then it similarly ought to be proscribed as much as possible in the online world. We think it is possible to draw analogies between the different media. We believe that we have managed to strike a sensible middle course. We have recognised that, on the one hand, we have some regimes by virtue of state and territory regulations that allow access to highly offensive adult material but, on the other hand, we have taken a much stricter approach to free-to-air television because it is much more family oriented. Given the overwhelming preponderance of young children who access the Internet, we ought to be in a sense leaning more in that direction than the other.Those who claim that the legislation is unworkable are usually those who have not looked at the overall schema, because quite clearly it does not represent a snapshot attempt at any one point in time. It provides a basis on which ongoing actions can and should be taken. We would expect that any new technologies and new applications that arrive will be implemented as much as possible. That is not an unworkable situation. It is a recognition that, as things currently stand, it may be very difficult to apply the same adults only approach to R-rated material onshore as to offshore.To pick up on a point Senator Harradine made, we are not simply saying, `Here is a non sequitur. We will have two different regimes.' We propose to move an amendment that will provide a statement of intent designed to demonstrate that it is the view of the parliament that, wherever possible, that material should be accessed by adults only and that, if and when the technology becomes available to do that, we would expect the legislation to reflect it. That will be part and parcel of the review that we believe should be undertaken by 1 January 2003, which is about 3½ years away. That will also enable a proper scrutiny to be made of the latest technological developments.We do not for a moment throw in the towel on that front. We simply say that, given that you cannot readily distinguish between R-rated and X-rated material coming in from offshore, particularly where it is all contained within the one web site or portal, then it may well be you have to have a differential approach at this stage. But ideally we would like to have the same treatment accorded both internationally and domestically.As far as streaming is concerned, again we are conscious of the problem that is constituted by ephemeral material but, given it will be fairly constant in its theme and content, we believe it ought to be possible—at least after complaints have been made—to verify the nature of that material and to ensure that if material continues to be repeated along the same themes then action can be taken. Whilst you are not banning precisely the same film or content, you are banning something that is very similar. I think that addresses the vice that we are concerned about.It is not the case that we leave everything to the government and we ignore user education or parental empowerment. We think that is part and parcel of a sensible regime and that responsible service providers and content providers would similarly encourage parents and educators to take whatever action they can to protect children. But given that parents are often not around—either because they are at work, because they are not familiar with the technology or because kids simply have their PCs in their bedrooms and do not have their parents looking over their shoulders—it is pretty unrealistic to think that parents can simply sit back and be confident that everyone will do the right thing. You need the combination of the two. The approach we have taken reflects the importance we place on both strands of policy.I do not think there is anything else I would want to add at this stage. I thank all senators for their contributions. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bishop's ) be agreed to.21:24:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator A.J.J. Bartlett)30Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.,Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Crane, W.Cook, P. F. S. MacGibbon, D. J.Crowley, R. A. Chapman, H. G. P.Denman, K. J. Lightfoot, P. R.Hogg, J. Reid, M. E.Hutchins, S. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Vanstone, A. E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5221The bill.21:28:005221Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber today.21:28:005221Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I ask the minister how, in practice, the government sees a take-down notice being issued.21:29:005221Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—In relation to material onshore, in each of the classification areas RC, X and R, once a complaint has been made by a citizen, the ABA then examines or refers that complaint to the Classification Board. Once the Classification Board has made a prima facie finding, a take-down order can be issued. That puts the onus to comply on the service provider. That take-down order can be challenged; but normally, in the absence of a challenge, it would constitute a final decision.21:30:005221Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I ask the minister whether the government can provide any examples of Internet regulation internationally that employ a similar regime to that proposed in the bill.21:30:005221Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think every regime is different for the simple fact, apart from anything else, that technologies keep changing. But the Americans in their approach, for example—and I think they have been twice struck down by their Supreme Court—have been much more specific than we have been in ours. Their regime has imposed strict liability on service providers, whereas our regime does provide a much greater degree of flexibility in terms of requiring the industry to develop codes of practice and having criteria in forming those codes of practice that will enable the industry to accommodate new developments.I do not believe that this sort of system has been tried anywhere before. Certainly a number of countries have imposed requirements for proxy filters. But, again, they vary in their degree of comprehensiveness and, because those regimes were put in place some years ago, they do not take account of some of the developments that have been brought to our attention even in the last few months. I do not think we should in any way shy away from taking action just because no-one else has gone down this path. In fact, it has been put to me that, if we get it right, this may well be a much more sensible model than that which has been tried in some other places.21:32:005221Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I also ask whether the government can provide the committee with any information that talks about community concerns and community attitudes. In his comments, the minister talked about a survey from overseas that looked at community concern about regulation. I do not mean to misrepresent the example the minister gave, but I would like to draw his attention to some of the community opinions about censorship, and Internet censorship in particular, that have been made available to us. It is the case that in Australia community opinion has been surveyed.I am not sure what information the government has at its disposal, as opposed to relying on American surveys, but I still contend that there was no information before the inquiry from the government that would indicate that the broader community are in favour of a punitive or even unworkable regime. Most recently, a survey by the Sunday program on 25 April 1999 posed the following questions: `Which of the following are you most concerned about: sex and nudity on television, violence on television, or senators telling us what we can watch?' I acknowledge the distinction between television and the Internet, but I think it was quite telling that the results of the survey indicated that four per cent of the respondents were concerned about sex and nudity, 12 per cent were concerned about violence, and 84 per cent were concerned about senators telling us what we can and cannot watch. I am wondering what the government's response is to those figures.Another survey, by the Eros Foundation, was carried out by Roy Morgan in early 1999. The results of that survey clearly demonstrate some significant conclusions—again across broader media. Findings showed that a clear majority of adults were in favour of the film Lolita being available for viewing by adults. The survey indicated, once again, an overwhelming opposition to political interference in the classification process.There was also a survey by www.consult, undertaken in January and February this year, of Australian Internet users. Around 25,000 surveys were submitted. One of the questions in the survey was: `Do you think the government should censor the Internet?' In reply, 9.9 per cent of respondents chose the option `I think the government should censor the Internet'; 62.5 per cent chose `I think parents should be responsible for their kids' Internet use'; 22.2 per cent chose `I don't think anyone should censor the Internet'; 4.1 per cent chose, `I don't care'; and 0.6 per cent of respondents did not respond to the particular question.A number of polls have been conducted by Radio National, and one was done by the Age. Again these were across different media and I acknowledge—through you, Madam Temporary Chairman to the minister—that they were not specific to the Internet. But I am really curious to see what substantiation there is of the government's statement of reasons that there is overwhelming community concern.21:35:005222Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have seen some of those surveys and most of them are mickey mouse. The one that you referred to about senators telling us what to do was basically the tag line of a very one-sided effort by the Channel Nine Sunday program several weeks back. I would not for a moment take it seriously. To ask someone, `Are you in favour of senators telling you how to lead your lives or what to watch?'—this was the third question; I forget what the first and second were—is preposterous. It has got nothing at all to do with the issues at hand. I would be very surprised if many people would put their hands up and say, `I am in favour of senators—or anyone else—telling me what to do.' That tells you nothing at all about whether parents have legitimate or even unfounded concerns about what their children might be watching.I would have thought the best way of gauging community concern is to look at what the reaction has been since this legislation was first mooted, having regard to the fact that this has been an ongoing issue over a matter of years. There have certainly been surveys that have shown that one of the big hesitation points for people having PCs in their homes or accessing the Internet is that they are concerned about what they might come across or what their children might come across. If the concerns were other than very narrowly based, you would certainly have expected a lot more rank and file outcries than I have come across.You will always find industry speaking self-interestedly; it is not confined to this particular industry. Some of the surveys that simply ask users what they think remind me very much of Wired magazine back in the early 1990s which ran this sort of line constantly. You would have loved it, Senator Stott Despoja. It appealed to all the yuppies who regarded themselves as being the next generation. They did not believe in any form of controls. They thought the Internet was the wild frontier, that it was the best place to be and that everyone ought to get their hands off. And they ran this line for some years. Eventually, when they got around to doing a survey, they found out that even their own subscribers had the same views as mainstream America, and that was, `Yes, we do want you to intervene, we do want you to protect our personal privacy, we do not want to come across offensive material and we do want you to treat it as much as possible the way that you would treat the physical world.'A few self-interested industry surveys, particularly those of the civil libertarians, have played a very superficial role in this whole debate, aided and abetted by some journalists who have taken the lazy way out and not bothered to read the provisions of the bill but have made sweeping generalisations about, `Isn't it outrageous that someone should be in there trying to regulate our lives?' I read one today in the Canberra Times, which said something like `Whether or not parents should be concerned about the safety of their children on the Internet, the fact remains' and away it went with the usual over-the-top rhetoric. So when people are not prepared to address the issues and to ask whether it is a matter of serious concern and whether something should be done about it rather than whether they can manufacture a way to express their outrage in such a way that they kill off the bill then you will not have a sensible discussion on the subject. I am very confident that the response of the parties in this chamber is in itself an indication.If you honestly thought that there was a huge groundswell of opinion out there that was violently opposed to what we were doing, don't you think we would have heard a lot more about it in this chamber and in the other chamber? You have not. In fact, I think we even heard Senator Brown saying that in principle he supported doing something. He then of course went off on his usual red herring about casinos. That may be a separate and legitimate issue, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you ought to be trying to restrict access to offensive material on the Internet. When we last had this debate in this chamber, I detected cross-party support for the proposition that we ought to do what we can. That is what we were elected to do, and I certainly have not seen any community response that would say that we are on anything other than the right track.21:40:005223Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I want to follow up with some questions arising out of your answers, Minister. You mentioned the response to the Wired magazine survey in the US and identified the issue of personal privacy as one of grave concern to online citizens, amongst other things. Why is it that your government has chosen to legislate to deal with the Internet in this way whilst not proceeding with the appropriate privacy protections that have been mooted for some time now with respect to electronic information about citizens? Further, you make comments about the civil libertarians having not bothered to involve themselves in this debate, when one of the greatest difficulties to date has been the time frame put forward by your government. How outrageous it is for you to stand up and criticise the Australian community for lack of input or substandard contribution to this debate when you have pushed it forward so rapidly in the environment of the inquiry and when the Select Committee on Information Technologies had profound difficulty trying to structure a series of hearings and get the appropriate number and range of witnesses that were necessary to explore these issues in full in time to suit your agenda.It is worth noting that the IT select committee has a majority of government members and with the support of Senator Harradine has the ability to determine its agenda and timetable. That is what occurred. You have had complete control of this timetable and you have condensed public discussion and debate under the auspices of that inquiry and in the public arena to a point where people have not had the opportunity to contribute in a full way—in a way that they are demanding and in a way that you have rejected—and that is because you have chosen to compress the time frame and not allow the debate to develop.I suspect that had you put in place a realistic timetable through the course of this debate, had you put this bill on the table and allowed even just the typical timing to occur, then the Australian community's voice would have become louder as knowledge and understanding of the implications of this bill permeated beyond the online community and into the general community—those, I hasten to add, who are not online largely through some neglect of your party's commitment to promoting equity of access for all Australians to the Internet.The issue of other legislation that is required to facilitate the addressing of both social and economic implications of the Internet takes me back to the question that I asked. At what point does your government intend to legislate for the protection of privacy of information relating to citizens of this country? Why is it that you have chosen not to legislate in that area prior to this bill coming forward? Why is it that, rather than facilitating the growth of the online community and the online economy through legislation relating to digital signatures and other such matters, this happens to be the very first bill to be debated in this chamber with direct impact—unfortunately, in a negative way—on the online community and the online economy?21:44:005224Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I did not say that the civil liberties community had not been involved in the debate, and I certainly did not criticise the community for not being involved in the debate. I said that the civil liberties groups had, by and large, distinguished themselves by not condescending to detail. In other words, how long does it take you to read this bill—a couple of hours? They have had weeks to get their minds around it, if they had really wanted to. There have been hear ings galore. These are people who supposedly pride themselves on being experts in the field. By and large, they have tried to maintain a campaign at a very rhetorical level, which I do not think does justice to the concerns of the wider community, and I do not think even they pretend that it does. It might appeal to their own membership, it might be a way of getting people a bit more excited about an issue, but it does not do justice to the debate.As far as privacy is concerned, we are not debating privacy, but there is an Attorney-General's consultative committee that has been labouring away on that issue for quite some time, as I am sure you know. There has been almost an impasse between the American approach and the EU, and we think we are in the process of arriving at a solution that will provide the best of both. But it is not something that we are breaking our necks to legislate on just for the sake of it.However, not only has this been the subject of other parliamentary hearings over a period of years but also it has effectively reached the point where, unless a legislative framework is put in place, there is no incentive for the industry itself to start developing those codes of practice, and it does not give them a set of principles around which to build the codes. We certainly take the view that we are moving at the appropriate pace. No doubt you and others like you would like forever—just as you have wanted to try to stall other critical pieces of legislation—but we do not think that is the right approach here, and we will be pressing ahead.21:47:005224Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Minister, what are the implications for freedom of speech in this legislation?21:47:005224Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—They are no more or less than any legislation, and there is an abundance of it that can curtail any absolute freedom. As you well know, real life consists of compromises in every area. No-one has the right to shout, `Fire!' in a crowded theatre, and no-one pretends that you have the right to go around defaming others. There are many limitations on freedom of speech in its absolute form; the question is whether they are justified. This bill seeks to strike the necessary balance so that people can give expression to legitimate issues and portrayals but not in such a way that they degrade humanity or that they simply purvey highly offensive or indeed illegal material which has little or no redeeming social benefit.21:48:005225Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am interested in the speech that degrades humanity. I wonder if the minister could explain to the committee what he meant by that term and what limitations should be put on it.21:48:005225Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not going to go beyond saying that this bill is all about trying to contain access to offensive or illegal material. If Senator Brown does not know what that is, then perhaps he had better get out there and have a look at some of the hundred million web sites there are around the world. There is no shortage of highly offensive material, if you want to look for it, and that is what this bill is all about.21:48:005225Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—For example, Senator Synon, according to today's Daily Telegraph , has moved to ask the ABA to look at—presumably to remove—a reference to a lesbian relationship during an afternoon programming session. Minister, is that the sort of thing that you would like to see removed from public access?21:49:005225Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—That has nothing to do with this bill.21:49:005225Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, it has everything to do with the bill. What I am trying to establish here are the limitations, as the minister sees them, that should be placed on what is publicly available. The debate has of course centred on what is available to children. Senator Synon—from the minister's side of the chamber—believes that a perfectly ordinary lesbian relationship is not something that should be allowed. I ask the minister whether he agrees.21:49:005225Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Again, I say that it has nothing to do with this legislation. As I understand that issue, the concern that has been expressed relates to what a spokesman from the ABA had to say about a soap that has been running now for some months.Progress reported.Adjournment522510000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.522521:50:005225Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I rise tonight to speak about national competition policy and its advantages for the Australian community. In 1995 the Labor government, supported by the coalition in opposition and all state and territory governments, implemented the most broad ranging program of micro-economic reform ever attempted in Australia to that time. It was designed to improve Australia's economic performance by bringing higher productivity to the government sector, in particular, and also to the non-corporate sector. The encouragement of competition in Australia has been a bipartisan policy in order to encourage efficiency and fairness in the community.The 1974 Trade Practices Act is the statute which oversees this competition. It originally only applied to incorporated business—that is, to companies only. But since 1995, through the national competition policy, the Trade Practices Act now applies to government businesses and to unincorporated businesses through the competition principles agreement and the conduct code agreement. The aim of this policy was to introduce competition to virtually all sectors of the Australian economy. Why? Because competition means reduced prices and better service for consumers and increased welfare for everybody. This is another area where some key policies and practices had been preventing Australia from reaching its economic potential. The results were inappropriate regulation and red tape and government monopolies which provided poor service and kept prices high. Those policies had weakened the incentives for people to be innovative and self-reliant.The 1995 national competition policy reform package was a breakthrough. It provides Australia with a chance to harness resources more effectively, more efficiently and more productively. Higher productivity and economic growth are the only ways to get higher sustainable wages and better job prospects. These policies will give consumers an idea of the true cost of providing services and are also an essential guide to investments by both the private and government sectors for the benefit of all. All state and territory governments showed they were committed to it in 1995, including the coalition opposition in Canberra. We supported this policy because it was good for Australia in the long run.Contrast this with the situation today. I remind the Senate that when Labor were in power we supported each of their four major economic reforms: freeing up the Australian dollar, freeing up the finance markets, lowering tariffs and competition policy. None of these policies were taken to the electorate before they were actioned but we, the coalition, supported them because they were good for all Australians. Contrast that with the position today and tax reform. Tax reform has been a long-term issue—Asprey in 1975, Hawke in 1986 and Hewson in 1993. Both sides of politics know that tax reform is needed in Australia. Yet, unlike our attitude when Labor were in power, they do not want to act in the long-term interests of Australia, for our children and our grandchildren. They oppose tax reform for their short-term political goals. What a shame.But I digress. Back to competition policy, the projected gains from national competition policy are impressive. The estimates at the time were that the annual gain in real GDP would amount to about 5.5 per cent—about $30 billion a year in today's dollars. Wages were projected to be three per cent higher than they would otherwise be and it was predicted that an additional 30,000 jobs would be generated. After three years, the results are already impressive. Electricity bills in contestable markets of Sydney and Melbourne have fallen by around 30 per cent, the price per kilowatt hour is half that of non-contestable markets in Hobart and Perth, the national electricity market has been working since December last year and all users in the eastern states will be able to choose their own supplier by the year 2001.Gas prices for major industrial users fell by 50 per cent after deregulation of the Western Australian market in 1995. Gas access charges are set to fall by 60 per cent by the year 2000 in New South Wales. The cost of international telephone calls has fallen by 50 per cent in real terms in the past six years and the cost of STD phone calls has fallen by 40 per cent over the same period. Last week Telstra announced further drops in call prices for both STD and international calls. Consumers in New South Wales have saved at least $86 million as conveyancing costs fell by 17 per cent between 1994 and 1996 when the legal profession's monopoly was removed. In Queensland, 10 of the 17 largest councils have implemented two-part tariffs for water, resulting in an average saving in water usage of 20 per cent in the first year. Rail freight rates for the Perth-Melbourne route fell by 40 per cent and service quality and transit times improved after the introduction of competition. Freight prices for grain in Western Australia dropped by 21 per cent in real terms after deregulation in 1992-93. Freight rates for coal in the Hunter Valley dropped by 25 per cent over three years and a further 10 per cent fall is scheduled in the next 12 months.Despite the success of competition policy reforms, there are still some people, some interest groups and some politicians who would choose to abandon it. As the Productivity Commission draft report on this topic—published this month—says, there is general confusion about the causes of rural decline in both population and economic activity. The decline has been in progress for many regions of Australia for many years. The key factors behind this have been, firstly, declining terms of trade for agricultural and mining products. In agriculture, the real prices of products have been down by over half over the past 40 years. For mining products, the prices are down but by nowhere near as much as for agriculture. The second factor has been greatly increased productivity. I remind the Senate that Bert Kelly, the modest member, used to say that if you want to stop rural population decline you should ban tractors. Hence the share of agriculture and mining has dropped from 20 per cent of GDP 50 years ago to eight per cent today.National competition policy brings the Trade Practices Act to government monopolies, such as energy and transport, which had been characterised in the past by poor management, overmanning, poor service and inappropriate pricing. It also provides for access reform for common infrastructure such as rail and pipelines. It also proposes, and is implementing, structural reform of government businesses. For instance, New South Wales rail is broken up into seven parts and the Victorian ports authority has also been broken up. Another key direction is the review of anticompetition legislation.As both the National Competition Council and the Productivity Commission have pointed out, better communication of the aims of national competition policy are required. The results are often forgotten. The lower prices and the better service are just taken for granted. It behoves all of us as politicians to make sure that we take every opportunity to let the community know of the benefits of competition and its extension to government and other enterprises. Everyone will be better off.Australia must continue to adapt to change. We are a small fish in a big ocean and if we want our children and our grandchildren to prosper we must have a more competitive economy. Finally, where changes are necessary, governments must strive to be compassionate with people or groups that are affected by change. In conclusion, I commend to the Senate the annual report of the National Competition Council and the draft report of the Productivity Commission on the impact of competition policy and reforms on rural and regional Australia. I congratulate both of those organisations on the work they have done.522721:59:005227Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—The shortage of doctors in rural and remote regions of Australia is a complex problem that the Howard government has been tackling on many fronts with some success. In 1998 there was an increase of 4.1 per cent in the numbers of doctors in rural areas. However, the problem is far from being solved. Only 16 per cent of doctors work in rural areas while 30 per cent of the population lives in these areas. The problem has an added urgency when one discovers that an estimated 22 per cent of those doctors working in rural areas will retire in the next 10 years and on average doctors working in rural practice only stay for two years.It is interesting to compare the experience of the more rural and remote provinces of Canada with what we are trying to do in Australia. Canada has similar problems to Australia, with the bulk of the population concentrated in their southern cities and with similar small rural farming communities as well as isolated centres in their remote northern areas. However, Canada has been much more successful in providing doctors to rural communities than has Australia. As of 1997, the Canadians had one doctor for every 797 people in rural areas whereas in Australia there is only one doctor for every 2,761 people. So Canada has almost four times as many doctors per head of population in rural areas as Australia. Why is it difficult these days to recruit doctors to rural communities in Australia, what has the Howard government done to redress the decline of rural doctors and can the Canadian experience be of any use to Australia?Rural practice is unattractive to contemporary medical graduates for reasons which can be grouped under four headings. Firstly, working conditions: rural doctors very often are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They suffer professional isolation, lack locum support and local back-up, and the level of technology available in small rural hospitals is usually not what they are used to. Secondly, there are social factors, largely to do with their partner's lack of employment, lack of educational opportunities for their children, distance from extended families, and the tendency of doctors to marry city people who find it hard to adjust to life in small country towns. Thirdly, these days young doctors lack the skills that doctors had 40 years ago: they cannot do anaesthetics, obstetrics or surgery. Finally there is the question of income. The population in rural and remote areas is small and, as with other professions, doctors find that practising in small towns is just not financially viable.Given that these are the problems, what solutions can be considered? Firstly, it has been found that medical students from country areas are 40 per cent more likely than their city counterparts to be happy to work in the country after graduation. Medical schools are now being encouraged to reserve places for country students and in the recent budget the Howard government provided $4 million over four years to provide scholarships to meet the accommodation and other support costs of country students studying medicine.Secondly, programs are now in place to specifically train doctors for rural practice so they have the procedural skills required. In WA, the Western Australian Centre for Remote and Rural Medicine, which is largely federally funded, has been very successful in providing general support, locum services and postgraduate education to rural doctors in WA. The federal government is funding the establishment of eight university departments of rural medicine, which will do much to identify the training needs of rural doctors.Thirdly, addressing the issue of income, the federal government has set up the Practice Incentive Program, which rewards rural doctors and other GPs for providing quality care. In this year's budget the federal government has allocated $43 million to a rural retention grants scheme under which doctors who continue to practise in small rural towns for more than two years will receive cash grants to supplement their incomes.Ideas promoted by the National Farmers Federation, such as geographic registration under which doctors are only allowed to practise in limited postcode areas in the country, just do not work. Coercing doctors into country practice when they do not want to be there is a recipe for an unhappy outcome all round. An example is the experience in South Africa when, to overcome the shortage of doctors in the country, army doctors were sent to country towns. These doctors resented being sent to the bush. They played a lot of golf and went fishing but were just not interested in remaining in country practice and as soon as they could they returned to the cities.What has been achieved in dealing with this problem since the Howard government took office? The number of doctors in rural Australia has gone up by 7.2 per cent in the last two years and in remote areas it has gone up by 21.5 per cent. But in spite of this success the fact remains that Canada has four times as many doctors per head of population working in rural areas as we do. What is it that the Canadians do that we do not in Australia? One solution which has been very successful in some Canadian provinces is to put salaried doctors into health centres in small rural towns. In this model, community health centres in these small towns provide a wide spectrum of medical and paramedical services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry, social work and so on. Instead of having just one doctor, the centres have two or three salaried doctors, who thus have a reasonable working roster with adequate time off for recreation and study and who give each other professional support.The concept of having salaried medical officers in rural areas overcomes many of the problems associated with the present model of traditional private practice in small towns. We do have a similar system to this in some parts of Australia such as in the north of WA where, in the Kimberley small towns like Halls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing and Wyndham as well as larger towns like Derby and Broome, the medical services are provided by salaried doctors working from the local hospitals, which have been turned into community health centres of a kind.As part of the coalition's 1998 election commitment, the new Regional Health Service Centre Program is an initiative to further improve the provision of health and community care services in rural communities. Regional health service centres will be established in 30 communities which will involve the Commonwealth for the first time in providing funding for primary care medicine at these centres.What about getting doctors to work in these centres? I believe that in the future, with the restrictions the federal government has placed on the availability of provider code numbers for private practice, it is going to become increasingly difficult to get private practitioners to work in small rural towns. This is because the doctors who obtain provider code numbers, and so can set up in private practice, will inevitably go to the larger towns and cities where they can make more money. So for those doctors who do not have a provider code number the option of working as a salaried medical officer in a regional health service centre will become increasingly attractive.The question arises as to how such medical officers will be paid. In the Northern Territory, a trial of cashing out Medicare benefits is being conducted. Under this trial all the medical benefits which would have been paid for health services in an area are used to provide medical services, including buildings, equipment and the salaries of health professionals including doctors and paramedical staff. It is an interesting precedent, and I for one will be interested in the outcome of the trial, but there are problems in implementing the scheme.In the Kimberley region of Western Australia, the state government funds medical services and it is possible that a combination of cashing out medical benefits and a mix of government funding and shire support could be the answer to providing medical services based on this model. The Canadian experience has been that salaried medical officers have been the answer to the provision of medical services in small rural areas and, as such, the Canadian solution could well be the answer to our problems.22:09:005229Senate adjourned at 10.09 p.m.Documents52295229The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged or Disabled Persons Care Act—Determination No. 1999-2000/ACC1—Guidelines No. 9BG 1 of 1999.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 77.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 4 and 5 of 1999.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan— Amendment No. 28. Approval of Amendment No. 28.Australian National Maritime Museum Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 72.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendment of section— 92, dated 6 May 1999. 95, dated 30 April 1999. Directive—Part— 105, dated 20 [6], 21 [2], 23 and 30 April 1999; and 4 [2], 5 [8], 6 and 7 [25] May 1999. 106, dated 4 and 7 May 1999. 107, dated 16 and 21 April 1999. Instruments Nos CASA 222/99, CASA 223/99 and CASA 225/99-CASA 230/99.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 75.Defence Act— Defence Force Regulations—Declaration made under regulation 49, dated 20 May 1999 (in substitution for document previously tabled on 11 May 1999 ). Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1999/12-1999/14.Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 74.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 20A—Determination No. T9 of 1999.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 79 and 80.Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 78.Lands Acquisition Act—Statements describing property acquired by agreement under sections 40 and 125 of the Act for specified public purposes.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 76. National Health Act—Determination under Schedule 1—IHS 5/ 1999.Navigation Act—Marine Orders—Order No. 12 of 1999.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act—Approved Codes of Practice— Control and Safe Use of Inorganic Lead in Commonwealth Employment. Control of Scheduled Carcinogenic Substances in Commonwealth Employment.Ozone Protection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 73.Product Rulings PR 1999/25-1999/32.Public Service Act— Foreign Affairs and Trade Determinations 1999/5-1999/7. Public Service Determination 1999/2.Sales Tax Determination STD 1999/3.Superannuation Contributions Determinations SCD 1999/1-SCD 1999/4.Superannuation Guarantee Determination SGD 1999/1.Taxation Determination TD 1999/27.Taxation Ruling TR 1999/5.Telecommunications Act— Telecommunications (Due Date for Annual Charge) Determination 1999. Telecommunications (Late Payment of Annual Charge) Determination 1999.Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act—Telecommunications (Exemption from Annual Charge) Determination 1999.Miscellaneous5230The following document was tabled pursuant to standing order 139(2):Unproclaimed legislation—Document providing details of all provisions of Acts which come into effect on proclamation and which have not been proclaimed, including statements of reasons for their non-proclamation and information relating to the timetable for their operation, as at 10 May 1999.Answers to Questions on Notice5231The following answers to questions were circulated:5231(Question No. 226)2265231Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 November 1998:(1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and November 1998.(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement or otherwise of the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received.(5) In each instance, which firm was selected to conduct the research.(6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was the actual amount expended by the department.5231Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was formed on 21 October 1998. The following information given includes the employment component of the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs as well as covering the former Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. In this context, the total value of market research sought by the department for the period March 1996 to November 1998 is reflected in the table below:Month/YearAmountMonth/YearAmountMonth/YearAmount1996$1997$1998$MarchNilJanuaryNilJanuaryNilAprilNilFebruary$25,000February$49,900MayNilMarchNilMarch$35,594JuneNilAprilNilApril$42,200JulyNilMay$33,851May$56,140AugustNilJune$45,844June$10,000SeptemberNilJulyNilJuly$46,583OctoberNilAugustNilAugust$8,850NovemberNilSeptemberNilSeptemberNilDecemberNilOctober$105,500OctoberNilNovemberNilNovemberNilDecemberNilExpenditure in any one month may cover more than one contract.** In May 1998 a contract was let for the Labour Ministers Council for $340,000. As at 30 November 1998 no funds have been expended.Unfair Dismissals in Small Business(2) (i) To obtain information on the frequency of unfair dismissal claims at small businesses and the likely effect of an exemption from unfair dismissals laws on small business.Office of the Employment Advocate(ii)To assist in the development of a service charter for the OEA through consultation with clients on service standards, complaints handling mechanisms and information to be contained in the charter.Office of the Employment Advocate(iii) To assist in the development of communication strategies for the OEA by:* providing the OEA with information about attitudes to, and understanding of, the OEA, Australian workplace agreements and freedom of association within the target audiences;* assisting in the development of an advertising campaign and the OEA's broader communications strategy; and* establishing a benchmark against which the strategy implementation may be evaluated.Office of the Employment Advocate(iv) To assist in the development of an advertising campaign for the OEA by:* Testing for effectiveness of four competing creative approaches as part of the tender process to select an advertising agency to create an advertising campaign for the OEA; and* Evaluating final advertising concepts from the selected advertising agency.Employment related(v) To undertake a competitive benchmarking study into the performance of job brokerage by employment agencies.Employment related(vi) To provide strategic input for, and evaluation of, a communications campaign about the changes to Commonwealth employment assistance to job seekers and employers.Workplace Relations(vii) To undertake qualitative testing of workplace relations module of Bizlink.Workplace Relations(viii) To provide senior divisional staff with an assessment of the extent of which the Department's Australian Government Employment Group's (AGEG) clients' needs were being met and what action would be required to ensure that its products, services and ideas are as effective as possible. At the time the contract as let, AGEG was also introducing a new client service arm called Work place partners. Part of the market research was to determine what products and service clients would want to be made available to them.Workplace Reform(ix) To obtain information on the drivers behind public attitudes to further workplace reform.Unfair Dismissals in Small Business(3) (i) Given the limited budget indicated for this project, and the fact that it was not communications related research, the Office of Government Information and Advertising provided informal advice only on the most effective way to conduct this research. OGIA suggested the names of some research consultants who would be capable of carrying out the project on a restricted budget.Office of the Employment Advocate(ii) OGIA provided advice on preparing the brief, comments on the draft brief and a list of consultants to be invited to tender for the project. A representative of OGIA was also present at question and answer sessions for the prospective tenderers and provided advice as part of the selection process.Office of the Employment Advocate(iii) Advice was provided by OGIA on preparing the brief, comments on the draft brief and a list of consultants to be invited to tender for the project. A representative of OGIA was also present at question and answer sessions for the prospective tenderers and provided advice as part of the selection process.Office of the Employment Advocate(iv) OGIA advised on the process to be used to select a consultant for project and provided comments on the draft brief prepared by the OEA. OGIA also provided advice on the reasonableness of costings provided for this project.Employment related(v) There was no involvement of the OGIA.Employment related(vi) The engagement of a consultant for campaign followed due process as advised by the OGIA; key components were:* the Department and OGIA developed the brief and compiled a list of five consultants who could be invited to tender;* the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) approved the final brief and, as a consequence, the list of consultants to be invited to tender;* the tenders received were assessed by a committee comprised of representatives from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and OGIA; and* final selection of the consultant was made by the department with advice from OGIA.Workplace Relations(vii) OGIA provided, from their database, a shortlist of two appropriate research consultants to invite to submit proposals, plus a back-up company to be invited to tender if one of the other companies were unable to tender.Workplace Relations(viii) OGIA examined the initial draft brief to consultants and provided a list of research consultants to whom the brief could be sent.Workplace Reform(ix) OGIA was not involved in this process.Unfair Dismissals in Small Business(4) (i) (a) Four agencies were contacted but only one could meet the department's requirements. (b) One tender proposal was received.Office of the Employment Advocate(ii) (a) Four companies were invited to submit proposals. (b) Three tender proposals were received.Office of the Employment Advocate(iii) (a) Four companies were invited to submit proposals. (b) Two tender proposals were received.Office of the Employment Advocate(iv) (a) One company was invited to submit a proposal. (b) One proposal was received. For this project OGIA advised that it was appropriate to invite only the successful tenderer for project (iii) to tender. This was on the basis that the project closely related to project (iii) and the knowledge of the topic area and the needs of the OEA gained through this project would be likely to result in a better outcome from project (iv) than would otherwise be possible.Employment related(v) (a) This was an open tender process. (b) Twenty-two tenders were received.Employment related(vi) (a) Five organisations were provided with a brief and invited to submit proposals. (a) Three submitted proposals.Workplace Relations(vii) (a) Two companies were invited to submit proposals. (b) Two proposals were received.Workplace Relations (viii) (a) Four firms were invited to submit proposals. (b) Three submitted a proposal.Workplace Reform(ix) (a) The department, on behalf of the Labour Ministers Council (LMC), has established a panel of researchers who are available to undertake workplace relations related research projects including market research. The panel was formed through an open national advertisement. (b) Thirty-four researchers submitted proposals to be part of the panel.Unfair Dismissals in Small Business(5) (i) Brian Sweeney and Associates.Office of the Employment Advocate(ii) Eureka Strategic Research.Office of the Employment Advocate(iii) Brian Sweeney and Associates.Office of the Employment Advocate(iv) Brian Sweeney and Associates.Employment related(v) KPMG.Employment related(vi) Worthington Di Marzio.Workplace Relations(vii) ACA Research Pty Ltd.Workplace Relations(viii) Consumer Contact.Workplace Reform(ix) Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd.Unfair Dismissals in Small Business(6) (i) The contract price and the actual amount expended was $5,500.Office of the Employment Advocate(ii) Contract price was $23,500. The actual amount expended was $23,500.Office of the Employment Advocate(iii) Contract price was $74,000. The actual amount expended was $71,700.Office of the Employment Advocate(iv) Contract price was $39,000. The actual amount expended was $39,000.Employment related(v) Estimated cost of the project was $92,000. Actual amount expended was $91,300.Employment related(vi) The initial contract was $119,900. Subsequent variations increased the value of the contract to $190, 944. Workplace Relations(vii) The estimated price was $7,280 with the actual amount expended $7,640.Workplace Relations(viii) Contract price was $25,000. The actual amount expended was $25,000.Workplace Reform(ix) The contract price was up to $340,000 plus a maximum of $35,000 for travel. The project was to be undertaken in stages. To 30 November 1998 no funds have been expended. Stage 1 has been completed and Stage 2 is nearing completion. The project was jointly commissioned by the Commonwealth and participating members of the Labour Ministers' Council (LMC). The Commonwealth's share of Stages 1 and 2 is $185,667.50, with the other participating governments contributing $75,222.50.Decisions have not yet been taken on proceeding with the final stages. Should these stages proceed, the Commonwealth's share is anticipated to be $78,750 and the participating government's share is $26,250.5234(Question No. 427)4275234O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Will all racing, trotting and greyhound coursing clubs be required to pay the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) on all their activities.(2) If some clubs or some activities are to be exempt from the GST what will be the basis for those exemptions.(3) Will those clubs that are required to pay the proposed GST also be required to account for all supplies of goods and services used or consumed as part of their activities in staging horse or dog races.(4) Will each club then be required to file a GST return in respect of each taxation return period.(5) Will each club also be required to pay GST to the Australian Tax Office within the prescribed taxation return time.(6) Will all nomination and entry fees paid to horse and greyhound owners to racing clubs attract the proposed GST.5234Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Racing, trotting and greyhound coursing clubs that are registered for GST purposes will be required to charge GST on their activities and will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on purchases of business inputs. Businesses carrying on an enterprise with a turnover of $50 000 or more will be required to register for GST purposes, while those with a turnover less than $50 000 will have the option to register.(2) GST free treatment exists for certain activities such as health and education services. Chapter 3 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 outlines the activities that qualify for GST-free treatment.(3) Registered clubs will need to keep records of the value of gross sales of goods and fees charged for services (such as entry fees, ground admission fees, etc.) and gross purchases and tax on purchases. If the gross GST payable in any period exceeds total input tax credits, then the difference will be paid to the Australian Taxation Office. If total input tax credits exceed gross GST in any period, a refund can be claimed.(4) Clubs registered for GST purposes have a formal requirement to lodge GST returns. In practice, a GST return will be part of the Single Business Activity Statement.(5) Clubs registered for GST purposes will be required to remit any GST, net of input tax credits, to the Australian Taxation Office within the relevant period. Where the value of input tax credits exceeds the gross GST liability, a refund will be able to be claimed.(6) Fees paid by horse and greyhound owners to racing clubs registered for GST purposes will be subject to GST. For registered owners, the GST paid can be claimed as an input tax credit.5234(Question No. 428)4285234O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Will all thoroughbred and standard bred stallion and greyhound service fees attract the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) on all their activities.(2) If some services are to be exempt from the GST: (a) what will they be; and (b) what is the basis upon which an exemption from the GST will be granted.(3) Where a race horse or greyhound is leased rather than purchased will the lease payments attract the proposed GST. (4) Will the leases of race horses or greyhounds to non-residents attract the proposed GST.5235Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Entities that are registered for GST purposes will be required to charge GST on their activities and will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on purchases of business inputs. Businesses carrying on an enterprise with a turnover of $50 000 or more will be required to register for GST purposes, while those with a turnover less than $50 000 will have the option to register.(2) GST free treatment exists for certain activities such as health and education services. Chapter 3 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 outlines the activities that qualify for GST-free treatment.(3) Yes, where the lessor of the race horse or greyhound is a business registered for GST purposes. However, where the lessee is a registered business, the lessee will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on the lease.(4) If the horse or greyhound is situated in Australia, the lease to a non-resident would attract GST. If the horse or greyhound is exported, the lease would be GST free.5235(Question No. 430)4305235O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Will horse racing jockey's and trotting driver's fees attract the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST).(2) If there are any exemptions: (a) what are they; and (b) what is the basis for these exemptions.(3) Will horse and greyhound trainer's fees attract the Government's proposed GST.(4) If there are any exemptions: (a) what are they; and (b) what is the basis for these exemptions.(5) Will all veterinary fees associated with the racing of horses or greyhounds attract the Government's proposed GST.(6) If there are any exemptions: (a) what are they; and (b) what is the basis for these exemptions.5235Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Entities that are registered for GST purposes will be required to charge GST on their activities and will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on purchases of business inputs. Businesses carrying on an enterprise with a turnover of $50 000 or more will be required to register for GST purposes, while those with a turnover less than $50 000 will have the option to register. Where a jockey or trotting driver is an employee, their salary will not be subject to GST but, subject to the registration threshold, the fee charged by their employer for their services will. However, horse or greyhound owners registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits to offset the GST paid on business purchases, including horse racing jockey's and trotting driver's fees where these services are purchased from a registered business.(2) GST free treatment exists for certain activities such as health and education services. Chapter 3 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 outlines the activities that qualify for GST-free treatment.(3) Entities that are registered for GST purposes will be required to charge GST on their activities and will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on purchases of business inputs. Businesses carrying on an enterprise with a turnover of $50 000 or more will be required to register for GST purposes, while those with a turnover less than $50 000 will have the option to register. However, horse or greyhound owners registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits to offset the GST paid on business purchases, including horse and greyhound trainer's fees where these services are purchased from a registered business.(4) See (2).(5) Where the veterinary surgeon is registered for GST purposes, GST will be charged. However, horse or greyhound owners registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on business purchases.(6) See (2).5235(Question No. 432)4325235O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Will the sale of all thoroughbred horses, standard bred horses and greyhounds attract the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST); if not: (a) what sales will be exempt from the GST; and (b) what will be the basis of those exemptions. (2) If horses or greyhounds are sold by auction will the commission and other charges imposed by the auctioneer also attract GST.5236Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Where the seller is registered for GST purposes, GST will be charged. However, buyers of horses and greyhounds registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits for GST paid on business purchases.(2) Where the auctioneer is registered for GST purposes, GST will be charged. However, businesses registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits for GST paid on business purchases.5236(Question No. 433)4335236O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) be imposed on the Totalizator Agency Board (TAB) profits or turnover.(2) Have all states agreed to drop state-based taxes applying to TAB profits or turnover if a GST is imposed on them; if so; (a) which states have agreed; and (b) when were those agreements reached; if not, will a GST be imposed on TAB profits in addition to the state-based taxes they pay currently.(3) Has Treasury undertaken any assessment of the amount of revenue a GST would collect from TABs.5236Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) In regard to its gambling operations, GST will apply to the TAB's gambling margin, that is, total wagers less total monetary prizes. The TAB will be able to claim input tax credits for GST paid on business purchases.(2) In respect of State taxes on gambling, the tax reform document "Tax Reform—not a new tax—a new tax system" (ANTS) noted that:"As the States already tax gambling highly there may need to be corresponding reductions in State gambling taxes. This will be possible because, under the proposed arrangements, the States will receive the proceeds of the GST, including the GST on gambling."Accordingly, the States and Territories signed the Intergovernmental Agreement at the Premiers Conference on 9 April 1999 agreeing to adjust their gambling taxation arrangements to take account of the impact of the GST on gambling operators.(3) Treasury has not specifically estimated GST revenue from the TAB.5236(Question No. 434)4345236O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Is the activity of racing a thoroughbred horse, a standard bred horse or a greyhound a taxable activity under the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST).(2) Does that mean any prize money won by the racing of a horse or dog will be subjected to a GST.(3) If the activity of racing is a business can the owner or the lessee claim all GST paid in inputs into that activity.(4) If the activity of racing is a hobby or recreational pursuit can the owner or the lessee claim GST inputs paid into that activity.(5) What tests will be used to differentiate between business and recreational participants in racing for the purposes of the application of a GST.5236Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The activity of racing a thoroughbred horse, a standard bred horse or a greyhound is subject to the GST. For registered businesses undertaking racing activities, prizes won will be treated as consideration for a supply of racing services while input tax credits will be allowed for the GST paid on the costs incurred in the course of the business.(2) GST will be included in prizes paid out by racing clubs to registered owners. However, because the racing clubs can claim the GST paid out in prizes as an input tax credit, there is no need for prize money to fall. A GST registered owner of the horse or dog will be required to remit 1/11th of the prize if it was won in the carrying on of an enterprise.(3) Horse or dog owners registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST paid on purchases of business inputs. Businesses carrying on an enterprise with a turnover of $50 000 or more will be required to register for GST purposes, while those with a turnover less than $50 000 will have the option to register.(4) See answer to question (5). (5) An entity who genuinely owns horses for the purpose of racing and carries on that activity in a business like manner (ie with a reasonable expectation of profitability and therefore collecting GST on outputs) should expect to satisfy the tests for being treated as carrying on an enterprise as set out in s 9-20 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998.5237(Question No. 521)5215237Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.5237Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The total costs borne by the former Department of Communications and the Arts during the 1997-98 financial year for the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals were:(a) Parliament House office—$3939;(b) home/state ministerial office—$1612; and(c) private home—Nil.5237(Question No. 550)5505237Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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.5237Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) $1,568,878 (This excludes Departmental staff costs, which cannot be readily split between accrual budgeting implementation and other budgetary and accounting functions. It includes the cost of purchasing a new Financial Management Information System and Human Resource Management System in the Department's Canberra office, which were acquired to address a range of business needs including the implementation of accrual budgeting.)(2) There was no specific estimate for implementation of accrual budgeting in 1997-98.(3) (a)-(b) and (4) (c)(3) (a)Consultancy(3) (b) Company(4) (c) Cost of Consultancy$Strategic Overview of Corporate Systems in the APSPrice Waterhouse3,500Review of Tenders for the Business Assessment of Corporate SystemsDeloitte Touche6,500Baseline costing for Existing FM & HR SystemsPrice Waterhouse15,000Assessment of Business Needs and Assistance with Selection of Corporate Business SystemsAcumen/PALM Management482,700 People Management Strategic WorkshopPALM Management3,000Provide strategy for the implementation of accrual budgeting across the Bureau of MeteorologyDunhill OCG Contracting P/L60,925(4) (a) and (b)Each of the above Consultancies was performed by a number of consultants undertaking a varying number of days work and at different rates depending upon the level of experience of the individual. Therefore, to answer this question would require significant effort to check each individual invoice to ascertain how many days were charged and at what rates. Accordingly, I am not prepared to divert resources to have this work undertaken.(5) (a) $237,300(b) $215,419(6) $2,875,300 (This excludes Departmental staff costs, which cannot be readily split between accrual budgeting implementation and other budgetary and accounting functions. It includes the cost of purchasing a new Financial Management Information System and Human Resource Management System in the Department's Canberra office, which were acquired to address a range of business needs including the implementation of accrual budgeting.)5238(Question No. 551)5515238Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.5238Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1), (2), (3) and (4)The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts did not incur any expenditure in the 1997-98 financial year, in addition to its normal operating expenses, in preparing for the move to accrual accounting.(5) The estimated total departmental expenditure on outside consultants for the 1998-99 financial year is $84,405. Of this amount, it is anticipated that approximately $8,000 will be recovered from agencies on a cost recovery basis. To date, an amount of $74,815 has been spent.(6) The estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting, in addition to normal operating expenses for the 1998-99 financial year is $84,405.5238(Question No. 569)5695238Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.5238Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The information requested is not readily available in the form requested. The department's accounting system records the amount spent on legal services, which includes disbursements and other services as well as the provision of legal advice. With this qualification:(1) The department spent $746,621 in the 1997-98 financial year on legal services obtained from the Attorney-General's Department (including the Australian Government Solicitor).(2) The department spent $34,645 in the 1997-98 financial year on legal services obtained from other sources.5239(Question No. 579)5795239Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 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.5239Alston, 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:In respect of those areas of the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry that were part of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in the 1997-98 financial year:(1) Total payments made for legal services obtained from the Attorney-General's Department were $1,580,625.00.(2) Total payments made for legal services obtained from other sources were $318,894.00.5239(Question No. 595)5955239Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 16 March 1999:(1) What grants have been provided to the Equal Vocational Employment Network for the purposes of assisting people with a disability to find employment.(2) What accountability mechanisms and performance criteria were set as part of those grants.(3) What checks have been made to ensure that the network is meeting those performance criteria. (4) Has the network met the performance criteria set down in relation to the grants.(5) Does the network operate a business called Zenith Employment and Training.(6) What is the commercial relationship between Zenith and the network.(7) Has Zenith spent some of the money granted to the network on a proposal to lease the Eden Country Club with the intention of building 62 assisted living apartments on the site.(8) Is the building of assisted living apartments consistent with the objectives of the grant to the network.(9) Can a complete breakdown be provided of how the network and Zenith have spent the money granted to it by the Commonwealth for the purpose of assisting people with disabilities to find employment.(10) Included in the above expenditure breakdown can details be provided of any salaries paid to employees of the network and of Zenith and any administration costs incurred by these bodies.5239Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $452,156 in 1996-97; $497,600 in 1997-98; and $526,999 in 1998-99.(2) Grant contract conditions require the provision of annual financial statements, prepared and signed by an external auditor. In addition the funds received from the Commonwealth must be acquitted and reports on progress against agreed targets be submitted to the Department on a biannual basis.In accordance with the Disability Services Act (1986) the agency is also required to undertake an annual self-assessment audit. The audit includes a client survey to gauge satisfaction with agency service provision.(3) The Department has analysed the organisation's financial reports to determine ongoing viability and the effective expenditure of grant monies. Analysis of performance reports to identify services which are not meeting national benchmarks has also been completed.(4) Yes.(5) Yes.(6) EVEN Inc. is the auspicing body and Zenith Employment and Training is the service delivery outlet.(7) No. Supplementary advice provided by EVEN Inc. evidences alternative sources of funding for their Eden Country Club proposal.(8) No. (9) The annual audited financial statements submitted by EVEN Inc. cover both Commonwealth grant monies and funds from other sources. They do not provide a separate breakdown of how EVEN Inc. has spent the Commonwealth grants.(10) Audited financial statements (income and expenditure statement and balance sheet) reflect the total of salary and administration for the organisation. They do not provide details of individual salaries or administration costs.These financial statements indicate that in 1996/97, $297,900 was spent on salaries and $210,460 on administration and in 1997/98, $303,534 on salaries and $214,159 on administration.5240(Question No. 606)6065240Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1999:(1) (a) Whose responsibility is it to assess and approve work for the dole projects to ensure that participants will be adequately trained, supervised and supported; (b) what criteria are applied to make the assessment; and (c) when and how are approved projects audited to ensure that training, supervision and support are in fact adequate.(2) (a) Whose responsibility is it to ensure that participants in the work for the dole program have suitable qualifications, experience and character to be placed in specific projects; (b) what resources are required to be allocated to this task; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that agencies do not waste the time of unemployed people or project organisers by referring people who are inappropriate for the work.(3) What funding does the Commonwealth provide to organisations to cover the costs of taking on work for the dole participants, including interview and selection costs, and resources for supervision, training and support.(4) Are work for the dole participants provided with worker's compensation insurance; if not, what protection do they have if they sustain a chronic injury in the course of participating in such a scheme.5240Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Work for the Dole project applications are assessed by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business assessment teams. Recommendations on projects for approval are made by a ministerially appointed National Selection Advisory Committee. All projects are approved by the Department's Group Manager for Labour Market Programs and Services.(b) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business applies the following selection criteria when assessing applications to ensure only projects of high quality are chosen:* the proposed project properly reflects the needs of the local community;* the ability of sponsors to monitor and support the progress of participants during the placement;* the ability to provide support for participants on completion of the placement; and* the ability to provide the services on a cost-effective basis.A minimum assessment score must be met for each criterion in order for a project to be considered for funding.(c) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business monitors all Work for the Dole projects in order to ensure satisfactory performance by the sponsor in terms of contractual compliance and quality of service. The most important sources of information which Departmental officers use on an ongoing basis to monitor projects are:* sponsor performance reports during the project and on conclusion;* at least one project site visit by Departmental staff to ensure that sponsors are adhering to the objectives of the program and complying with the specified Code of Conduct; and* feedback on the project from participants and the public made either directly to the Department or via Centrelink.(2) (a) Centrelink determines the eligibility of job seekers to participate in the Work for the Dole program. Satisfying the general eligibility requirements does not guarantee a place on a Work for the Dole project as Centrelink takes into consideration other factors such as the participant's overall health and suitability. Sponsors are encouraged to participate actively in the recruitment process and to liaise closely with Centrelink staff to attract eligible job seekers to their project.Where participants are involved in schools and childcare centre projects, sponsors must use appropriate selection procedures so as to ensure that only suitable participants are chosen. These procedures include:* the Principal (or equivalent) participating in interviews to select participants;* the Principal (or equivalent) agreeing to the selection of a particular participant; * the project sponsor must make reasonable enquiries, including obtaining two referee reports from appropriate persons who have known the prospective participants for a minimum of five years and confirming the authenticity of the referee reports; and* police checks to be carried out to establish that no participant has any record of convictions for crimes against children within Australia.(b) Under a Service Arrangement with the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Centrelink allocates appropriate resources to assess the suitability of eligible job seekers to projects. Sponsors may include costs associated with recruitment of participants, as well as the fee for police checks if required, in their budget.(c) Eligible persons undertake an interview with Centrelink staff and/or with the project sponsor to ascertain whether they are suitable for a project. They will not be referred to a project if they are not considered suitable. If the sponsor has a legitimate concern about the suitability of a person who has been recommended to their project, they are invited to discuss their concerns with their Centrelink contact.(3) Funding for successful sponsors varies and depends on the length of the project, the number of placements and type of project being proposed. In developing a budget, sponsors can factor in appropriate interview and selection costs, including the fee for police checks required in special projects, as well as reasonable costs for supervision, training and support. Other costs that sponsors can include in their budget submission are:* project staff wages and on costs;* administration;* advertising/marketing of the project in the local community;* purchase of materials to be used in the project;* equipment leasing costs, including transport vehicles;* on-site services such as toilets or catering facilities;* appropriate insurance;* costs for training of participants;* safety equipment for participants; and* the audit of the project at its completion.(4) Work for the Dole participants are not provided with workers' compensation insurance as they are not defined as being employees whilst participating on a project. The Commonwealth purchases personal accident and general liability insurance for participants to cover injuries incurred through participation in Work for the Dole projects. The personal accident insurance covers all participants against accidental bodily injury or death arising from their involvement in a Work for the Dole project activity. These benefits are paid irrespective of fault, without having to prove negligence. The policy does not cover loss of earnings as, in the event of a disability, the participant will be entitled to some form of income support.Work for the Dole project sponsors are also required to purchase their own public liability insurance that covers Work for the Dole participants. In the event of a disability to a participant caused by the sponsor's negligence, the participant can make a common law claim. Participants are advised that if they have concerns about their treatment or any occupational health and safety matters during the placement they can contact Centrelink or the relevant Departmental officer.5241(Question No. 628)6285241Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:(1) (a) What has been the department's total expenditure to date on the Socioeconomic Simulation (SES) project and the Education Resources Index review; and (b) can an itemised list be provided of consultants used and payments made to them.(2) Can the Minister provide advice pertaining to the possible application of the funding model examined in the SES project to public schools funding.(3) Can a copy be provided of: (a) any estimates employed indicating the cost to public education spending should the model be implemented; and (b) the department's report to the Minister on the SES project.5241Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) Departmental costs to date for the Review of the Education Resources Index total $307,234, including an amount of $213,459 for the SES Simulation Project. These amounts include the cost of consultancies but do not include Departmental running costs such as salaries.(b) Payments have been made for consultancies as follows:KPMG Consulting—$7,145.60; Direction Group Pty Ltd—$111,840.00; MapInfo Australia Pty Ltd—$69,390.00; Australian Bureau of Statistics— $8,960.00; Australian Council for Educational Research—$4,200.00.(2) The application of an SES based approach to public school funding is not under consideration by the Commonwealth.(3) (a) As the funding model applies to non-government schools, no estimates of costs in relation to public schools have been made.(b) The SES Simulation Project Report will be released when the Government's decisions on future funding arrangements for non-government schools are announced.5242(Question No. 644)6445242O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:(1) What work did the then Bureau of Resource Sciences (BRS) undertake on the application from the New South Wales Government for a drought exceptional circumstances (DEC) declaration for the Wentworth Rural Land Protection Board (RLPB) in September 1997.(2) What conclusions did BRS reach about that application.(3) Did BRS undertake any further work on subsequent applications from the New South Wales Government for DEC or exceptional circumstances declarations for the Wentworth RLPB; if so: (a) what additional work did BRS undertake (b) when was that work undertaken, and (c) what was the outcome from that work.5242Alston, 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:(1) BRS provides assessments of biophysical conditions to the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC) when it evaluates exceptional circumstances (EC), including drought (DEC).BRS provided a report to RASAC on 11 November 1997 assessing the biophysical criteria for DEC in the Wentworth Rural Lands Protection Board (RLPB) until the end of October 1997.(2) This report confirmed the NSW Agriculture analysis of rainfall, concluding that the Wentworth RLPB did not meet the meteorological (trigger) criterion for DEC. Based on available data including analysis of rainfall within the nominated growing seasons and satellite information provided by NSW Agriculture, BRS assessed that the region did not meet the agronomic criterion for DEC. (3) Yes(a) In relation to the NSW Government EC application for the Wentworth RLPB, BRS provided RASAC with an assessment, evaluating historical climate variability compared to conditions ending July 1998, effectiveness of rainfall, production conditions and outlook and implications for productive sustainabilty.(b) BRS commenced work on 24 July 1998, and a final report was provided on 27 August 1998.(c) The report concluded that rainfall deficiencies in March 1994-April 1995 and October 1997-July 1998 were the dominant factors which led to a progressive decline in the pasture resource since 1994, and that conditions in July 1998 were comparable to the 1982/83 drought. BRS advised that management factors, including high stock numbers maintained during the 1994/95 period and the reported dependence on annual species, had intensified the impact of dry conditions on the pasture resource and increased the vulnerability of agricultural systems in the district to rainfall variability.5242(Question No. 650)6505242Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg7L6QLDALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) How many men's refuge shelters are there in (a) Hervey Bay; (b) Bundaberg; (c) Maryborough; and (d) Gladstone.(2) What is the current level of Commonwealth financial assistance for each of these shelters.5242Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) Nil(b) 1(c) 1(d) Nil(2) The shelter in Bundaberg will receive $63,188 total funding under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) in 1998-99 while Maryborough will receive $105,710.The SAAP program is jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the State Governments with the Commonwealth providing some 57% of total program funds for 1998-99.5242(Question No. 657)6575242O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re gional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) What role did the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) play in the development and implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport.(2) What role did the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) play in the development and implementation of the plan.(3) On how many occasions did Airservices Australia meet with BASI and CASA as part of the development and implementation of the plan.5243Macdonald, 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) I am advised that CASA was a member of the Senior Policy Group and the Task Force established by Airservices Australia to assess the development of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (LTOP). Details of meetings of the Policy Group and Task Force are contained in the Airservices Australia Long Term Operating Plan Report forwarded to the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development in December 1996. Also, CASA is a member of the LTOP Implementation and Monitoring Committee which has met on a regular basis since commencement of LTOP.(2) I am advised that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) was not formally involved in the development and implementation of LTOP. However, BASI was involved in the investigation of some aspects of LTOP during its implementation.(3) I am advised Airservices Australia met with CASA formally (See (1) above) and informally on a large number of occasions during the development and implementation of the LTOP. There were several meetings between Airservices Australia and BASI in the context of the investigations referred to in (2) above.5243(Question No. 659)6595243O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) Does the document Sydney Air Traffic Services—Sydney Airport Operation Statistics, November 1998 state on page 6, `The following noise sharing targets will be pursued by the [Long Term Operating] plan: 55% aircraft movements to the south over water; 17% aircraft movements to the north of the airport; 15% aircraft movements to the west of the airport; and 13% aircraft movements to the east of the airport'.(2) Does the document Briefing Notes on Sydney Airport for the period 4 February to 17 February 1999 include a table `Distribution of aircraft movements', that provides the following statistics:30.55 per cent—total movements to the north of the airport; 52.27 per cent—total movements to the south over water; 7.19 per cent—total movements to the east of the airport; and 9.99 per cent—total movements to the west of the airport.(3) What are the reasons for the significant difference between runway usage for runways 34R, 34L and 25 as defined in the plan and actual runway usage of these runways over the above period.5243Macdonald, 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) Yes.(3) The runway movement targets in the Plan are for the long term average. The distribution of runway movements for any two week period such as the one cited in the question is likely to vary significantly from the long term average due to factors such as seasonal variations in wind and weather patterns.A number of measures are currently planned or are being introduced which are designed to progress the average distribution of runway movements towards the targets.5243(Question No. 662)6625243O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) Has Airservices Australia (ASA) developed a runway rotation system to operate at Sydney Airport.(2) When was the project approved by the Board of ASA.(3) Was this project endorsed by the Minister; if so, when; if not, why not.(4) Did the board consider a detail project schedule for the implementation of the runway rotation system, including; (a) time-line; (b) estimated completion dates; (c) resource allocation for each task; and (d) budgets relating to each task and subtasks.(5) Was the Minister, or his office, provided with a project schedule for the runway rotation system; if so, when was this information provided; if not, why not.(6) Can the Minister provide a copy of the project schedule for the implementation of the runway rotation system.(7) What was the original estimated date for the completion of the runway rotation system.(8) Has the timing of the completion of the project varied; if so, what has caused that variation.5244Macdonald, 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) to (8) The selection of Runway Modes of Operation (RMO) at Sydney Airport is carried out according to a system of preferences set out in the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (LTOP) and subject to the operational criteria in the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).The requirement to operate a system involving runway modes being changed throughout the day, subject to weather and traffic conditions, was set out in the Ministerial Direction issued to Airservices Australia on 30 July 1997 by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development.This system was introduced by Airservices Australia from 3 August 1997.