1999-05-263912SENATE539101999-05-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Business53915391Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999.Committees539153915391Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Ellison) agreed to: (1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of bills introduced by the Government to give effect to a referendum on a republic. (2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives acquainting it with this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. (3) That the committee consist of 18 members, 6 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 6 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 3 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (4) That every nomination of a member be forthwith notified in writing to the Presi dent of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report. (6) That the committee report no later than 9 August 1999. (7) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair. (8) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee. (9) That at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.(10) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, a casting vote.(11) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties.(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(13) That, in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph 11, the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed.(14) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote but no casting vote, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(15) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 member of either House of the Government parties and 1 member of either House of the non-Government parties. (16) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(18) That the committee or subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(19) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.Bills5392s2165392Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Vanstone) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an act to amend the Copyright Act 1968.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.539209:32:005392Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Copyright Amendment (Importation of Sound Recordings) Bill will ensure that Australian consumers continue to enjoy the benefits of lower compact disc (CD) prices resulting from the 1998 amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 allowing the parallel importation of legitimate sound recordings, primarily music CDs.This bill will close a loophole in the Copyright Act that currently allows sound recording producers to claim control, under the act, of the importation of CDs by the inclusion of "film clips" or other copyright protected subject matter, such as a photograph, on or with a music CD. Parallel importation of films or artistic works is not permitted under the Copyright Act. These are different types of protected subject matter under the act to sound recordings. They are not, therefore, subject to the 1998 amendments.A number of retailers and some importers have been informed that they would be acting illegally if they continued to import or sell such imported CDs because of the copyright in this secondary copyright material. Affected importers and retailers have brought this practice to the Government's attention and emphasised the commercial disadvantage and consumer detriment that has and will result from being unable to offer these types of music CDs to the public at lower prices than the record companies are prepared to offer.Such action by producers was not anticipated at the time the amendments allowing the parallel importation of sound recordings were introduced. Whilst "enhanced" CDs have existed for some time, these were considered to be multimedia products, like CD-ROMs. However, it is plain that they are presently being sold and marketed primarily for their music content.This bill amends the Copyright Act to specify that where ancillary copyright material, like a film clip, is included in or with a sound recording, this material is taken to be an "accessory" to the sound recording and cannot, under the act, be used to prevent the parallel importation of the sound recording.The amendments do not, however, apply to the broader range of multimedia products that are produced for use on a player designed specifically for multimedia. Neither will the bill permit counterfeit or pirated material to be parallel imported. The bill substantially relies on provisions in the act that permit only the parallel importation of accessories that do not infringe copyright.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the 1999 winter sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills5392s2135392Consideration resumed from 25 May.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 , as amended, and opposition amendments Nos 7 and 8 on sheet 1397 moved by Senator Bishop. The question is that these amendments be agreed to.09:33:005393Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Late last evening the debate that was continuing related specifically to our amendment to determine a definition of what constitutes `reasonable steps'. This relates to compliance by Internet service providers to ensure that young people, children, are not exposed to undesirable material on the Internet. As I recall, the minister made some statements with respect to his interpretation of what Labor's amendment intended, whereas the point that the opposition wanted to make very strongly was that, as part of what constitutes reasonable steps, our amendment seeks to put in place a requirement that Internet service providers not just perhaps have filtering services available but that they inform and assist in the process of educating parents about those filtering devices.This is a quite important point given earlier discussion about the nature and range of filtering devices and the potential for collateral damage if indeed a filtering application, inadvertently or advertently, filters out more content than the user of that particular software is aware of or in fact desires. Again, how we manage this aspect is quite difficult. This is why Labor has been consistent in identifying awareness and education as the keys for addressing the problem. Our amendment regarding what constitutes reasonable steps tries to pick up this point so as to make it incumbent upon the providers of such filtering services to indeed go one step further and inform consumers, if you like, or end users of the Internet as to just what is being put in place with filtering software.The earlier discussion related specifically to the potential for discrimination against particular groups in our society. An example was raised regarding the inadvertent blocking of material relating to the health and welfare particularly of the gay and lesbian community in Australia, whereas many of the key words that perhaps could be used in filtering devices could inadvertently block out very important information sites relating to these communities or, indeed, to the health and welfare of the broader community. This again highlights one of the fundamental flaws.When we talk about filtering content and protecting children, where is the line to be drawn about what gets filtered out and what stays in, and how will users of the Internet be able to use their discretion to determine what types of filtering devices are available to them? There is a vast range of filtering devices already available on the market. Certainly the supplementary submission from the Internet Industry Association lists about a dozen filtering products that are currently available in the market.I have subsequently read reports of no fewer than 120 different products, be they applications or filtering devices at end user or ISP level, that can provide a filtering type service. So it is not as though there were any necessity for the government to put in place a mandate, a definitive requirement, that a filtered service must be provided. The market is already responding to demand, and there are a vast range of products already there. The key, of course, is the degree to which they are taken up in the community. Once again—and I know I am going to be very sick of saying this by the end of this debate—the ultimate key to successfully protecting your own children from undesirable content is to look at what options are available to you at an end user level, and have the ability to be discerning and look at a range of products that may or may not be offered by the range of ISPs that exist in this country.The other point I would like to make is with respect to small Internet service providers. We know that the major ISPs in this country already offer filtering services. The committee heard evidence about America Online, AOL, offering this service. My colleague Senator Bishop has already put on the public record the statistics in terms of response by parents to that differentiated service offered by AOL. So it is not as though the choices are not currently there for the community.Our amendment does not seek to impose a mandated requirement on ISPs to embark on providing only filtered feed to their customers. Our amendment seeks to provide a reasonable test, including one of technological feasibility, which includes recognising that it will never be 100 per cent effective. The test also includes commercial viability, which recognises the capability of the range of ISPs to embark on a program to provide differentiated services or to invest in new technology to equip them to provide such a differential service involving filtering technology.The last point which we have added, which is what greatly differentiates us from the government, is an emphasis on empowering the end user by informing them about the filtering options and highlighting in the legislation that the provision of filtering options for differentiated services is the most effective way of comprehensively dealing with this issue.09:40:005394Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Last night I said that the Democrats supported some aspects of the Labor Party amendment, especially in relation to technical and commercial feasibility. I pose the same question to Senator Bishop—and not because I think he did not intend to answer it, but because he was interrupted last night.The Democrats share some of the opposition's concerns in relation to filtering technology with regard to their workability and the idea of inadvertent blocking. We agree on all of those things, but I am curious as to why the mention of filtering technologies is in this amendment. I ask the opposition: why is it in this amendment? Is it not more appropriate to deal with that issue elsewhere?I reiterate that the Democrats believe that that kind of end user empowerment is appropriate and is something that we support, but I am not entirely sure that this is the area of the bill in which we should put it. Perhaps Senator Bishop can respond to my questions from last night and see whether he can change our minds.09:42:005394Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Last night when the consideration was interrupted I was about to respond to Senator Alston regarding the issue he raised about the construction of proposed sections 37 and 44. I then intended to address the point raised by Senator Stott Despoja. I make the point at the outset that whilst we are dealing with opposition amendments Nos 7 and 8, and they will be put separately from government amendments Nos 16 and 20, the issues are very much the same and are worth while discussing in the same context.It seems to the opposition that there are three options on the table. Firstly, we can stay with the provisions in the original bill, and that is our least favoured option. Secondly, we can go to government amendments Nos 16 and 20, and we acknowledge that they represent an improvement to the bill as it was originally circulated. Thirdly, we can go to opposition amendments Nos 7 and 8. We regard that as the best option, and we are going to continue to urge the government to accept the amendments.It is a bit like winning medals in an athletics race: bronze is good, silver is very good, but it is about getting the best option, and that is the gold medal. We think the ALP amendments Nos 7 and 8 represent the gold medal in this critical aspect of the bill—proposed sections 37 and 45.The government wants to substitute the words `commercially feasible' for `commercially viable'. That is the first difference. The ALP seeks an additional clause—the inclusion of words that go to the meaning of being cost effective. They are the two critical differences between the government and the opposition. Last night, Senator Alston was making the point that the opposition was engaged in some sort of subterfuge, that we were seeking to neuter their paragraphs (a) and (b) by the inclusion of our paragraph (c), because paragraph (c) would somehow or other replace or override paragraphs (a) and (b); and that if an ISP satisfied our paragraph (c), that would be taken as sufficient steps to satisfy the requirements in the bill.My response to Senator Alston on that point is that when you look at the wording of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after (a) we say `(a) and'; after (b) we say `(b) and'. So it is (a) and (b) and (c). All of those requirements have to be satisfied. If the word was `or' in lieu of `and', and it was `(a) or (b) or (c)', Senator Alston's argument would be correct and simple satisfaction of paragraph (c), if it were in the alternative, would override. But it is not. We say you have to satisfy each of the three steps: (a) and (b) and (c).As to the meaning of the words `feasible' and `viable', like Senator Harradine last night, we dragged out the dictionary to find out if there was a difference in substance between the words `feasible' and `viable'. `Feasible', according to the dictionary—the dictionary I am referring to is the dictionary on the computer in our offices—means `practicable', `suitable', and `likely', all adjectives. Synonyms for the word `feasible' are `practicable', `possible' `achievable', `attainable', `workable'. The word `viable' means `feasible'—interestingly enough—`usable', `capable of living' and `practicable'.So `viable' means feasible and practicable and there does not appear to be a great range of difference, although I think it is possible to argue that the word `feasible' has a theoretical concept. Will it work in practice? It probably also involves the concept of being cost effective. So if the government has sought to alter the meaning of our amendment, my gut feeling is that by changing the words they have achieved little and, in fact, they have included the overall meanings of the words. So there does not appear to be a great deal of reason to substitute `viable' for `feasible' or `feasible' for `viable' because according to the dictionary meanings they mean much the same sort of thing. They certainly apply in a practical concept and the word `feasible' embraces the concept of being cost effective.ALP amendments Nos 7 and 8, particularly in respect of paragraph (c), are not contained in the government bill or government amendments. Paragraph (c), as I said, is preceded by the word `and'. Hence it is meant to include paragraphs (a) and (b). But paragraph (c), importantly, goes to the three basic issues. It addresses the use of end users' filter devices and self-regulation. And this comes to the issue raised by Senator Stott Despoja. Why is the opposition pressing this issue and why are we including it here? We prefer it not to be read in isolation from paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c), in addressing end users' filter devices and self-regulation, goes to what we regard as one of the more critical issues in this debate and in this bill and probably reflects to a significant extent the philosophical divide between the government and the opposition.As I have said on a number of occasions now, we were impressed by some of the evidence at the committee stage. We were impressed, in particular, by some of the evidence from private companies who market particular devices which a lot of parents have chosen to purchase, forgoing expenditure on other things. They have regarded that as a priority. As Senator Lundy said this morning, 82 per cent of the subscribers to one of those companies—a company with 11 million subscribers around the world—those with families, choose to purchase filtered products so that their children can access the Internet. When their children do it on their own, in isolation and away from immediate parental supervision or direction they know that by purchasing those products the material those children access is harmless, is safe and is not going to have any untoward consequences.So parents have made a choice. They have said: `We are going to forgo disposable income that we could use elsewhere.' In some cases this involves not insignificant amounts—$20 or $30 or $40 or $50 a month is a fair amount of money to subscribe to a filtered product for the sake only of preventing members of your immediate family from having access to material that would be regarded as undesirable or unsavoury. They make a choice with their limited income to protect their children. They do it in huge numbers—82 per cent of subscribers. If it were only 20 per cent or 25 per cent, you could probably argue that is not the norm and that their attitude is a bit of an aberration. But when it gets up to the figure of 82 per cent that is telling you that nearly all families who purchase products purchase filtered products. I think it would be remiss of the parliament not to have proper regard to the informed choices made by parents concerning the standards they set to protect their children. So, Senator Stott Despoja, it is about choice—it is about parental choice and parental responsibility. 3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Why is it in this section?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—We regard section 37, relating back to section 4, as the critical section in this act and equally important as the debates we had on the review period and the sunset clause. If there were two or three issues in this entire debate that the opposition was willing to go to the wall on and change its vote on in its entirety, it is those three issues: the review period and sunset clause and the issues we are now discussing. We regard the other issues we have been discussing for the last two days as important and worthy of discussion, but not critical. This we regard as critical.When you are going through the establishment of industry codes, if industry codes cannot be resolved by the industry by 1 January 2000, the government mandates a particular code and the ABA then gives effect to that in terms of material passed through ISPs to consumers, we think it is important that the attitude of consumers as demonstrated in the marketplace and the attitude of the companies that offer the products that have significant take-up rate should be considered and is a reasonable thing to look at, in conjunction with all the others. I suppose you could say, `We could put it in another section of the bill or we could put it at the rear as an addendum.' The opposition has not really given that a great deal of consideration. We do think, though, that this is the critical part of the bill, along with the others. It is appropriate to be placed in here, and we urge upon the chamber and the government proper consideration of our views there.We understand that it does bring a different perspective to the philosophical approach adopted by the government in this debate. The philosophical approach adopted by the government in this debate is not shared by everyone. We think it might have had considerable respectability in isolation if it had derived from proper tabling of the bill, proper community discussion and proper resolution of issues through the committee inquiry process. It has not had that proper open and full discussion, and we are not persuaded, for that reason, to adopt the government's philo sophical view. We do believe that these clauses go to issues of knowledge, assistance, choice and self-help, and we do not regard it as remarkable or unreasonable that parents, consumers and businesses—anyone who is interested in this issue—should look to a government agency, the ABA, for advice and help. I think it is a positive role for a government agency to be able to offer assistance, as comprehended by paragraph (c), to consumers or parents who might be somewhat lost in the mire of this debate as to how they can assist their own families and their own children to access the latest technology and all of the information that is out there in the world. Simply ringing the ABA and the ABA having regard to all of the principles contained in clause 37 strikes us as being a valuable tool that can be achieved at minimal cost. We would prefer, and we have constantly argued, that the government allocate further funds for community awareness and parent empowerment on these critical issues, but the critical thing is the assistance that can be provided by the ABA to parents.We are much comforted, if you like, or confirmed in our view because that is the way the major country in the world in terms of Internet penetration is also going. I referred yesterday to an email that we had received from the United States which addressed the issue of filtering. An amendment was passed unanimously in the United States Senate where 100 senators to zero, across parties, endorsed a motion in a bill requiring all Internet service providers with more than 50,000 subscribers to offer free filtering software to their subscribers within three years following a period of encouraged self-regulation. The amendment could go into effect within one year if 25 per cent of ISPs with more than 50,000 subscribers are not in compliance. The point to be made is that the United States has tried a range of paths to address this issue of control of inappropriate material, the United States Senate has mandated providers to offer filtering technology to subscribers and this amendment (c) goes down that path. If it is successful, we are confident that a huge number of parents would avail themselves of that information and that the particular horrors addressed repeatedly by Senator Harradine and the government in principle in recent years can be effectively dealt with. (Time expired)09:57:005397Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think we have reached a pretty critical stage in this debate. What we have had so far are a couple of opposition amendments that will be effectively replaced by refinements which I think add significantly to the quality of the legislation and certainly address the matters of concern raised by the opposition. Indeed, the first opposition amendment in relation to a review was so badly worded that it did not even require the review to take place before the bill could have expired.The second one was to have a drop-dead sunset clause, again irrespective of the outcome of any review process, to simply say, `By hook or by crook we're going to kill this bill in three years.' That is the naked expression and effect of that proposal. It can only be that either you take the view that all these problems will be solved within three years and you have therefore made a judgment that this can only be a temporary arrangement or you would have a sufficiently open mind to be prepared to await the outcome. Senator Bishop actually said, `We would have the review first,' so why would you have an automatic drop-dead provision? The answer is now clear. Senator Lundy has let the cat out of the bag. She has announced on radio today that without the opposition amendments this bill is unworkable. Bear in mind that she regards the amendment we are currently discussing as the critical amendment, but we have not debated that and she does not know the fate of it, so she is talking that way on the strength of those two amendments I have talked about.In other words, what has now happened is that the hard Left has absolutely rolled the Right. I have been entertained for days now by this ongoing tension. I had thought that Senator Lundy's maverick approach was one that was tolerated but at the end of the day the Labor Party had learned its lesson and understood the need to protect families. Senator Lundy resolutely refuses to use any such rhetoric. I have given her opportunity after opportunity, but time and again she simply wants to talk about the problems and says, `We support some sort of ethereal intent but we do not have any practical alternative. We just want to kill this off.'But that had not been the message that Senator Mark Bishop and Mr Smith had been trying to get out into the public arena. It is now clear that Senator Lundy has won this particular contest, and that is a tragic step for all concerned. At the end of the day, you will wear it at the next election. I can assure you that, if and when this legislation goes through and you vote it down, you will not be allowed to forget it.Let me deal with a couple of issues that Senator Stott Despoja in particular would have a very great deal of interest in. It is one thing to argue for the need for public education—and there are those who might say that large amounts of money should be spent on that exercise—but that is separate and distinct from mandating a requirement in terms of reasonable steps. Bear in mind that, under section 37, the reasonable steps arrangement comes into effect by default only if there is not an industry code in place and section 56 requires that certain matters must be dealt with by industry codes and they include:(d) giving parents and responsible adults information about how to supervise and control children's access to Internet content;(e) procedures to be followed in order to assist parents and responsible adults to supervise and control children's access to Internet content;. . . . . . . . .(j) giving customers information about the availability, use and appropriate application of Internet content filtering software;(k) procedures directed towards the achievement of the objective of ensuring that customers have the option of subscribing to a filtered Internet carriage service . . . In other words, the codes of practice will require that all those matters are dealt with by the industry. Let there be no doubt at all, we are not proposing an either/or approach. We are proposing a range of community education measures, but we have a default arrangement, which is that at the end of the day we want to ensure a minimum level of standards apply in the community, whereas the Senator Lundy clique argue that education is sufficient. That is what she argues. That is her bottom line—as long as people are educated. What is so disingenuous about this whole approach is that she knows full well that less than 20 per cent of Australian households have access to the Internet.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—That's your fault.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It is the fact, isn't it? It is the fact—19 per cent. In other words, more than four out of five Australian households have not yet subscribed to the Internet.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—They can't afford it.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, it is not affordability, Senator Lundy. One of the major reasons is concern about issues such as privacy and pornography and you know that.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Prove it! Where are the statistics? Where is the survey?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Let me point out something else to you. Senator Bishop was at great pains to remind us on at least three occasions that the US Senate, 100 to zero, mandated an arrangement to require the provision of free filtering software. Why did they mandate it? Because they did not believe that simply a laissez-faire approach would do the trick. In other words, they took the view that at the end of the day it was essential, it was imperative, that this obligation be imposed on service providers to make free filtering software available. Free! It is not free in practice, but they are required to offer it to them free. In other words, it is going to cost the ISPs real money.Why did the Senate mandate it? Because it was not satisfied, by 100 to zero, that the laissez-faire approach would work. And yet that is the agenda you are now running. You are out there saying, `We don't want to impose any minimum standards. We are all for letting people do what they like and we hope that parents will do the right thing. We would like to think that they'll all be terribly technology familiar and eat, sleep and drink the stuff like Senator Lundy does. They'll know exactly which buttons to push, which ISPs to subscribe to and what the difference is between all these different technologies. They'll all subscribe to Choice magazine and they'll all sign up.' That is not the real world and you know it. It never, ever happens.There is a proportion of people who are literate in a range of areas just as there will be a proportion of people who will be highly IT literate and who will take up these opportunities if they are available. But our concern as a parliament ought to be for the majority of Australians who do express concerns. It is not just adults; children themselves want to be protected. All you are saying is, `If you want to be protected get out there, educate yourselves, find out what the options are and then go and ask for them, and maybe in a few years time this Senate will mandate a requirement that you be offered free software filtering technology.' It is utterly hypocritical. Senator Stott Despoja may be perfectly right that there is scope for further education programs, but they will not be necessary if the codes of practice do their job because they are required to address them in all sorts of areas. Senator Lundy clearly knew nothing about that requirement at all.What has not been addressed in any shape or form is why you need to slip it in to the reasonable steps requirement. It is pretty obvious. Senator Bishop said that the major distinction between us was in terms of technical feasibility, commercial viability and cost effectiveness on the one hand and technical and commercial feasibility on the other. He has admitted this morning that feasibility and viability are interchangeable, so you only have the add-on of cost effectiveness. I think that is a Trojan Horse because people would be providing it voluntarily or selling it commercially unless they thought it was not otherwise cost effective. So that would be a classic out that would override the capacity to do something that was technologically feasible or commercially viable. You would simply say, `Yes, but unfortunately it is not cost effective.'But the real issue is not the semantic differences between (b); it is the add-on of (c), `the better informed about the use of', et cetera. And that is only relevant in the context of 37(2), which says that in deciding whether reasonable steps apply you must have regard to those matters. It does not say you have to be satisfied on all three. Quite clearly, what could happen is that you say, `It is technically feasible, it is commercially viable, it is cost effective but they have a decent enough self-education program that we will not require it of them.' In other words, you do not have to be satisfied on all—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Read it!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I have read it. Don't lecture me about reading! You go back to school and find out how to read a statute. Then you will understand what `have regard to' means. `Have regard to' simply means that you have a look, you take them into consideration. You do not have to be satisfied on each count. You could quite simply have regard to them. You could say, `I think it's a line ball on the first two, but the balance is tipped in favour of the ISPs because they have some self-education program. That's sufficient to let them off the hook.' That is precisely the wording that you are advocating, and it is precisely the get out clause that, quite rightly, Senator Stott Despoja points to.If you are interested in self-education, by all means pursue that issue. But do not slip it in here as a backdoor way of letting ISPs off the hook, despite the fact that it may well be technologically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective and it may have regard to the matters set out in section 4(3) but simply because they have taken some steps to enable end users to be better informed that they have satisfied the requirements of the section. This is an open-and-shut case. What you are doing is desperately finding ways of voting down the legislation. That is fine by us. I did not think you would fall for this. I really thought you would be a lot smarter.We are absolutely delighted if you are going to say that all you believe in is laissez-faire regulation. You support some airy-fairy principle of wanting to protect children, but you will do absolutely nothing about it. You have come up with no constructive alternative. You have tried to say how difficult it all is. You are not prepared to espouse best endeavours. We come up with a sensible and improved arrangement for review, and you knock it off. Now you say that you do not believe in anything that is in this legislation and you are going to hit it on the head. That is fine by us. You are not prepared to stand up for parents and children. You are not prepared to protect them. You are not even prepared to continue mouthing the words that you have been using until now. Anyone who studies this will understand clearly what your agenda is. I think it is a great tragedy.10:09:005399Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—You always know when Senator Alston is in a bit of strife because he starts talking about factions and things like that. There are a couple of points that I would like to make about the state of this particular piece of legislation and our amendment. I reiterate Senator Bishop's comments about the fact that point (c) of this amendment is an additional point. In fact, if you read it closely you will find that it actually inserts a degree of obligation on the ISPs that yours fails to. The amendment states:(c) whether the particular steps enable end users to be better informed about the use of, or assisted in the actual use of, filter devices for self-regulation of Internet content.Why do we want that there? It is not an out. It is there in response to ensure that, for ISPs that put filter devices in place that filter out a degree of content and that do not inform consumers, those consumers are aware that they may not be receiving what the Internet has to offer. It is a check and balance on the vast range of filtering devices that are on offer. It is a check and balance on the inadvertent filtering out of content that perhaps is desirable for the recipient. So, Senator Alston, any out in this bill that you describe is a complete furphy with respect to this clause.In respect of reasonable steps, we are putting in place a test of technical feasibility, commercial viability and cost effectiveness. These tests are the ultimate point with respect to reasonable steps. For you to argue a point of distinction on that basis is ultimately ridiculous. Our point of distinction is that, by putting in this additional step, we identify the critical emphasis of end user education as being a fundamental point of importance in how we deal with filtering options at the end user level.By putting this in here, we are saying that it is not good enough to mandate filters or have a filtering option in place, be it technically feasible, commercially viable and cost effective, without telling people what is being filtered. Talk about Big Brother! That is one of the complaints about this legislation. You cannot legislate for filters to be used in certain parameters and then not tell people exactly what the scope of the filtering devices is. We have just heard a complete furphy from the minister in trying to position Labor in a different place in this debate. My comments have been consistent, as have those of the party's. We are gravely concerned about the access of children to undesirable content. I think we have a greater depth of understanding of what is technically feasible with respect to filtering out of the Internet, but we also have a grave respect for the capability of parents and end users in making informed decisions about what comes across the Internet in their homes. That is what this clause is about.Minister, I ask you to please desist with your condescending abuse across the chamber and start focusing on the real issues, which are your own test as well as ours for technical feasibility, commercial viability and cost effectiveness, and get on with the debate.10:13:005400Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I should take this opportunity to respond to the comments made by Senator Alston a few moments ago and put officially on the record the view of the opposition on the progress of this debate and the bill in its entirety. To do that, I will read some comments made by the opposition's shadow minister for communications, Mr Stephen Smith. In an interview this morning he said:Firstly, on Online Services, the Opposition is very disappointed that the Government hasn't agreed to its thoughtful amendments. You would have probably noticed that every division has been won by a majority of two, which is the Government combined with Senator Harradine and Senator Colston. So, it's pretty clear that there is a majority of the Senate who will support the Government's Bill.We're very disappointed, in particular, that our sunset clause has been defeated because we think the Government's greatest crime in this area is to seek to create the impression that the mere passage of this Bill will solve the problem. It won't. That's why we thought a sunset clause was important to force the Parliament to return to this issue in the future.That is, in two or three years time, after there had been a significant debate in the community and after the community had resolved its position on a range of offensive material and issues that derive from that and had come to a consensus, if a consensus were possible.If a consensus was not possible after two or three years of debate, then so be it. The government of the day acts out its philosophical position, puts the legislation through the parliament, and the parliament decides. But that is only properly done in a democracy after there has been full, open and thoughtful debate. Mr Smith went on to say later in the interview:As I said on Online Services, we are contemplating putting a line in the sand. Our amendments have been defeated and we're quite concerned at the Government's presentation that the mere passage of their Bill solves the problem for Australia's mums and dads. It doesn't. The only effective solution in this area is to make sure the mums and dads understand the use of the Internet and understand the capacity of end use filtering arrangements.The journalists asked him, `So you are not going to support the bill. Will you look to amend it later on?' Mr Smith responded:Well, we will contemplate our position at the conclusion of the Committee debate. But, as I say, we are deeply disappointed that the Government hasn't adopted any of our amendments. All of our amendments have been defeated by a combination of the Government, Senator Harradine and Senator Colston. So we're contemplating putting a line in the sand, to make the point this doesn't solve the problem as far as the general public is concerned.So, within an hour our two, we will conclude the committee stage and move to the final debate on this bill. The ALP is considering drawing a line in the sand. We circulated something in the order of 15 or 16 amendments, all of which have been defeated. We are not particularly aggrieved at that. That is the nature of this process and, if the government has sufficient support in this chamber, that is the way the ball rolls—no particular complaint on that score.What we do complain about, and what we have been saying since the beginning of April when the bill was tabled in the chamber and tipped out into the committee process, is that there is a con going on here. There is a fraud, a misrepresentation, a trick, being played in this chamber by the government, by Senator Alston, on the community. The trick is this. It is a very simple one. You raise the issue. You pass a law. You say, `We've solved the problem,' and ipso facto it goes away. That might properly apply in the case of 10 per cent of the offensive material that circulates in this country, because that material is circulated inside Australia and can be controlled or regulated or prevented or stopped. But the government have acknowledged—they have never denied—that 90 per cent of the offensive material, the core matter in this debate, comes from offshore and is not able to be regulated, short of putting up a technological wall right around the country and preventing access to material that the government of the day might regard as inappropriate or offensive. That is the only way you can do it. They do not suggest that, and it would be a nonsense if they do. The core problem is that the bill is a trick. It does not stop the material coming into Australia. It does not regulate the offensive material. This whole debate for three days has been a charade and there is a big con going on here. We understand the numbers in this chamber. They are clear. Our amendments have been defeated. The remainder of our amendments will probably suffer the same fate and then we will come to the final second reading and the third reading.As I say and as we have said all along, there have been two or three critical elements in this debate. The first was the review and sunset clause—the joint or separate discussion on those two issues. We wanted to have a sunset clause so that the legislation could expire. We wanted to have a thorough and detailed review so that the results of the operation of the bill could be properly considered objectively, the recommendations of that review committee could be considered by the government of the day, and then the government of the day could determine whether it was appropriate for the sunset clause to be negated or to remain in effect. But the government says, `No, we are not going to go down that path. We are going to override your desire for a sunset clause and we are going to vote against all of your amendments.' So, as Senator Lundy indicated in her press statement this morning, as Mr Smith confirmed in the documents I have read from and as we are putting to the chamber now, we are contemplating our position. And if the government remains unwilling to address our legitimate concerns regarding the review and the sunset clause, we will consider drawing the line in the sand. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Bishop's ) be agreed to.10:25:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)26Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. West, S. M.41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Denman, K. J. MacGibbon, D. J.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Hutchins, S. Knowles, S. C.Schacht, C. C. Macdonald, I.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10:29:005402Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—As our amendments have already been the subject of extensive debate, I simply move government amendments Nos 16 and 20:(16) Schedule 1, item 10, page 29 (lines 30 to 32), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), in determining whether particular steps are reasonable, regard must be had to: (a) the technical and commercial feasibility of taking the steps; and (b) the matters set out in subsection 4(3).(20) Schedule 1, item 10, page 35 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) For the purposes of subclause (1), in determining whether particular steps are reasonable, regard must be had to: (a) the technical and commercial feasibility of taking the steps; and (b) the matters set out in subsection 4(3).Amendments agreed to.10:29:005402Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 17, 21 and 25:(17) Schedule 1, item 10, page 29 (after line 34), after subclause (3), insert: Recognised alternative access-prevention arrangements (3A) An Internet service provider is not required to comply with a standard access-prevention notice in relation to a particular end-user if access by the end-user is subject to a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement (as defined by subclause (3B)) that is applicable to the end-user. (3B) The ABA may, by written instrument, declare that a specified arrangement is a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this Division to one or more specified end-users if the ABA is satisfied that the arrangement is likely to provide a reasonably effective means of preventing access by those end-users to prohibited content and potential prohibited content. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (3C) The following are examples of arrangements that could be declared to be recognised alternative access-prevention arrangements under subclause (3B): (a) an arrangement that involves the use of regularly updated Internet content filtering software; (b) an arrangement that involves the use of a "family-friendly" filtered Internet carriage service. (3D) An instrument under subclause (3B) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(21) Schedule 1, item 10, page 35 (after line 5), at the end of clause 44, add: Recognised alternative access-prevention arrangements (4) An Internet service provider is not required to comply with a special access-prevention notice in relation to a particular end-user if access by the end-user is subject to a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement (as defined by subclause 37(3B)) that is applicable to the end-user.(25) Schedule 1, item 10, page 40 (after line 7), after subclause (2), insert: Designated alternative access-prevention arrangements (2A) An industry code or an industry standard may provide that an Internet service provider is not required to deal with Internet content notified under paragraph 37(1)(b) of this Schedule or clause 43 by taking steps to prevent particular end-users from accessing the content if access by the end-users is subject to an arrangement that is de clared by the code or standard to be a designated alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this clause to those end-users. (2B) An industry code developed by a body or association must not declare that a specified arrangement is a designated alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this clause to one or more specified end-users unless the body or association is satisfied that the arrangement is likely to provide a reasonably effective means of preventing access by those end-users to prohibited content and potential prohibited content. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (2C) An industry standard made by the ABA must not declare that a specified arrangement is a designated alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this clause to one or more specified end-users unless the ABA is satisfied that the arrangement is likely to provide a reasonably effective means of preventing access by those end-users to prohibited content and potential prohibited content. Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (2D) The following are examples of arrangements that could be declared to be designated alternative access-prevention arrangements: (a) an arrangement that involves the use of regularly updated Internet content filtering software; (b) an arrangement that involves the use of a "family-friendly" filtered Internet carriage service. (2E) For the purposes of this Schedule, if an industry code: (a) deals to any extent with procedures to be followed by Internet service providers in dealing with Internet content notified under paragraph 37(1)(b) of this Schedule or clause 43; and (b) makes provision as mentioned in subclause (2A); then: (c) the code is taken to deal with the matter set out in paragraph (2)(d); and (d) the code is taken to be consistent with subclause (2). (2F) For the purposes of this Schedule, if an industry standard: (a) deals to any extent with procedures to be followed by Internet service providers in dealing with Internet content notified under paragraph 37(1)(b) of this Schedule or clause 43; and (b) makes provision as mentioned in subclause (2A); then: (c) the standard is taken to deal with the matter set out in paragraph (2)(d); and (d) the standard is taken to be consistent with subclause (2).These amendments insert in the relevant places recognised alternative access prevention arrangements. They allow the ABA to make exceptions for `family friendly' applications and technologies.During the Senate inquiry, concern was expressed that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 might have the effect of requiring wasteful double blocking of sites in circumstances where significant reliable end users—for example, many schools—were already employing their own blocking technologies. To address these concerns, the amendments will mean that ISPs will not be expected to take steps to prevent access to prohibited sites of end users who are the subject of a recognised alternative access prevention arrangement which has been declared by the ABA, which will be a disallowable instrument.10:31:005403Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I have a series of questions with respect to these clauses. From what you have described, Minister, if a filtering technology is in place and a special access prevention notice has been issued, what would the relationship be between the ability of the ABA to put in place a regime of identifying who has qualified for special access prevention notices in the absence of a code and what happens to what is described in these amendments if an industry code is in place? 10:32:005404Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—These sorts of arrangements can be developed by the industry in the code. In that event, the code would prevail and there would not be a need for special exemptions to be sought.10:32:005404Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My interpretation of this particular clause is that if an ISP has user level filtering or a filtered feed service, which have been subsequently identified by the ABA, that excludes them from being subject to access prevention notices. If that is what is described in this particular clause, is it your intention that, provided the code of practice embraces what is described in this particular clause, in fact the ABA will not have to proceed down this path? Or will this sit underneath a code of practice and therefore affect the code of practice in its operation? I am trying to ascertain whether this is a fall back outside the code or whether you are trying to establish a minimum approach or a standard approach to ISPs that provide filtered feed or end user filtered services before the code is put in place.10:33:005404Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The codes would have to be approved by the ABA. If they contain alternative access prevention arrangements acceptable to the ABA, then that would be the end of the matter and the codes would govern the conduct of the industry. To the extent that there are not appropriate codes in place, then it would be a matter for the ABA to consider individual applications.10:34:005404Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—In the absence of a code, this clause identifies almost a de facto licensing regime in that every ISP which provided such a service would have to notify the ABA. If a code is negotiated and exists, is the ABA still required to be notified of the different services provided? Is the exemption to special access prevention notices still available through the ABA if they register with the ABA when a code is put in place?10:34:005404Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There is a confusion of circumstances in that question. If the industry has developed an appropriate code of practice, then that governs the regime. Therefore, I would have thought there would be considerable pressure on the industry to do just that. In the event that there is not a code of practice in place, then this amendment would provide for the ABA, by written instrument, to declare that a specified arrangement is a recognised alternative access prevention arrangement. In other words, it would be a matter for an individual ISP or any other suitable applicant to approach the ABA and seek to have their arrangement approved.10:35:005404Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Minister, because the code of practice has not yet been negotiated, I certainly appreciate that you are unable to go into a great deal of detail, but can you give some indication to the committee whether or not the negotiations, at the point when you stepped into the debate, were leading towards a system of registration or identification of ISPs who were conforming to the requirements as outlined in the code? I am trying to get an idea of whether or not this fall-back position actually reflects what you are hoping to achieve in the substance of an industry code of practice and, given your close involvement with negotiations up to the point when you announced the proposed bill, how you envisage the nature of what the industry was intending.10:36:005404Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Amendment 25 provides for designated alternative access prevention arrangements. It says:An industry code or an industry standard may provide that an Internet service provider is not required to deal with Internet content notified . . . by taking steps to prevent . . . if access by the end-users is subject to an arrangement that is declared by the code or standard to be a designated alternative access-prevention arrangement.So the onus is clearly on the industry to develop such a code and, in the event that one is in place, then that will govern the circumstances of all ISPs.10:37:005404Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I advise the government that the opposition regards amendments Nos 17, 21 and 25 as technical in nature; they effectively avoid doubling up. The evidence was given in the committee and we took note of it at the time. The opposition will be supporting the amendments. I just raise a point: on my running sheet I have 17 and 21.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—There is a revised running sheet, headed 25 May 1999, 9.25 a.m., which has 17, 21 and 25 on sheet ER239.10:37:005405Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My notes show that we are supporting government amendment No. 25 anyway, so we will do them in one hit.10:38:005405Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would like to ask the minister to explain further what constitutes a designated alternative access arrangement. Obviously that is about registering the fact that a filtering service is in place. What do you envisage constitutes a designated alternative access arrangement for the purposes of identifying a particular filtering service application or device?10:38:005405Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The subclause says:The following are examples of arrangements that could be declared . . . . . . . . . . . .(a) an arrangement that involves the use of regularly updated Internet content filtering software;(b) an arrangement that involves the use of a "family-friendly" filtered Internet carriage service.10:39:005405Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—From recollection, the explanatory memorandum makes the point that they are not definitive examples. Can you describe, given that we have heard a lot of evidence about the range of filtering products that are available in the marketplace, some specific examples of what would fulfil those two examples as described for the purposes of constituting a designated alternative access arrangement?10:39:005405Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not going to make technical assessments of some things that might be floating around in the ether. You cannot be definitive. The whole purpose of the exercise is to require the ABA to make judgments in default of industry codes covering the field. Obviously that will be done on a case by case basis if necessary. The principles are clear. If they are genuine alternative access prevention arrangements then they will be given the all clear by the ABA, but obviously it will depend on the nature and extent of the proposals.10:40:005405Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Minister, I think you understand the implication of these questions. You are providing within your legislation an opportunity for some Internet service providers to provide services that are registered, identified or recognised by the ABA in some way that precludes them from being subject to special access prevention notices and take-down notices. When you say `family friendly devices', are you talking about end user filtering software that is perhaps provided by the ISP and can be installed on the home PC by the family?10:41:005405Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It could be either at the end user level or at the ISP level. It will be a matter of judgment as to whether it satisfies the necessary criteria and constitutes an alternative access prevention arrangement.10:41:005405Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I have to say I am absolutely thrilled to hear that, because this is the point we have been making all along: there needs to be an opportunity for people to choose, at the end user level, to put in place their own filtering software. It has taken a while for you to get to this point and acknowledge the importance of providing an option at that end user level, and it is not necessarily completely reliant on mandating the service. I think the interesting point with respect to where we are now is that the government has recognised this particular aspect as being important. What I think is still a point of distinction, however, is its insistence on providing a series of layers to get to that point. I think it is worth making the point once again that it is about end user control and choices for families in choosing what to put in place on their own PCs.10:42:005406Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I know the minister has couched these amendments as a response to the Senate select committee process, but I think they are quite fundamental changes; they make significant modifications to the scope and the operation of this legislation. Why was there not time to send these amendments to the select committee for consideration and debate? I think it is an incredible sign of bad faith that such significant changes were not debated in the context of the Senate select committee process, either after the committee had reported on this bill or certainly before this legislation came to the chamber. I would also like to know what groups the government has consulted with in the construction of these amendments. Have relevant industry and consumer groups been consulted?10:43:005406Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know what Senator Stott Despoja means about bad faith. I presume if we were simply ignoring what had occurred in the committee she would be pulling the roof down. We have obviously explored the implications of various concerns that were expressed and, at the end of the day, we take the view that it is not sufficient to simply allow parents to do their own thing and to somehow hope that they are all as passionate about the subject as Senator Lundy might be. We take the view that there is a community responsibility involved. We think that parents expect no less and that only in terms of strict safeguards, where others can be satisfied that the alternative arrangements meet the objectives of the legislation, will exceptions be made in order to avoid this double blocking.It seems to us that that is a perfectly reasonable approach. It is in marked contradistinction to the laissez-faire approach espoused by the libertarian faction led by Senator Lundy and the anarchist faction led by Senator Schacht. I think it is a very sad day that they should be ruling the roost. I thought that `Glim and Glimmer' was going to be the new approach—much more pragmatic, much more interested in what concerns ordinary people, not just pandering to the elites and captured by industry. But if they have won the day, good luck to Senator Lundy. I am sure it will only be a passing triumph.But, nonetheless, we remain determined to ensure that we do not simply leave it to individuals to make their own judgments in ignorance of what technical effect various arrangements will have. We want them to be properly scrutinised by a responsible body, and only when that body is satisfied that they will meet all of the objectives of the legislation will they allow those arrangements to be operative.10:45:005406Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I wonder if there is some way to put a filter on hackneyed and pejorative phrases being used by people.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Why don't you set a good example and stop using them?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Filter the minister. Of course, we extend him all the freedom to say what he likes. But the question I want to ask here is: has the minister been involved in any international survey of government and community attitudes to see whether there is some global move towards sorting out this matter? I think nations in isolation have great difficulty. There are global moves to fix up trade and so on, and I just wonder if Australia is involved in any global assessment of such things as extreme violence and so on being used through the Internet—looking at the sources, in other words, which are a large part of the problem the minister is trying to tangle with here.10:47:005406Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think the situation is that a number of countries around the world are looking closely at the issue and are having discussions between governments. I seem to recall that Bertelsman is organising a very big seminar on the subject, but I do not think as yet there have been any UN sponsored for ums. But that is not to say that this is not a matter of domestic concern in a great number of countries, particularly Western countries and particularly those countries that are in the forefront of the Internet.I think we are all aware that the United States has been trying to grapple with this issue for some years. They have not taken the view that you have to wait until there is some sort of international code in place. They understand the pressures to get in early and try to create a safe haven, which in many respects is likely to be the best possible guarantee that use of the Internet will expand significantly. That is the tragedy of the Labor Party's position. They are deliberately wanting to inhibit the growth of the Internet by not providing the protection that parents want in order to have the comfort to either surf the net themselves or to want to see their children surfing the net.That is why the household take-up rate is lower than it might be. Despite the fact that it is one of the highest in the world, Australia's level of affluence is such that many more people could subscribe. When you look at the surveys, you find that issues like privacy and pornography are major inhibitors. If you are not prepared to do anything about it, then you wear the consequences. I know that Senator Lundy has an ideological position on this, that she is not particularly interested in expanding the use of the Internet amongst ordinary parents, but I am sad that the Labor Party does not have a broader perspective.10:49:005407Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I would like to go back to the question I asked earlier about whether the government did consult with any specific industry or consumer groups. I am led to assume from the minister's earlier answer that the answer is no, but if there are any groups with which he consulted in the construction of these amendments, I would be happy to hear about them. I also ask again—and I asked this in the debate yesterday—if the minister would table the copious research and surveys that he keeps talking about.As I mentioned earlier in this debate, the overwhelming reason that has been put forward to this chamber for this legislation—and also for the rushed nature of this legislation in the committee stage, et cetera—was the so-called `overwhelming community concern'. I am prepared to accept that, if the government will substantiate it. So, instead of referring haphazardly to surveys and research and to privacy and pornography in the same sentence, would the minister please table that evidence, because I certainly did not see much of it in front of the Senate select committee process.As for civil libertarian values, they are not much to scoff at in a liberal democracy. Some of us actually are very proud to call ourselves `civil libertarians' and do not shy away from that. I think it is particularly ironic to watch a debate between the minister and various other opposition members in this place when it has taken a long time and, in fact, this government and the Labor opposition have been dragged kicking and screaming to implement or even consider laws that relate to the issue of the extension of privacy laws to the private sector.So I am quite happy to have the ideological and philosophical debate about civil libertarian values because, yes, that is one of the reasons the Democrats oppose this legislation. The Labor Party might be contemplating their position, and the minister may be very much in favour of this bill, but the Democrats have said quite clearly from day one that the motivation behind this bill—that is, to establish some kind of regulatory regime—is not in dispute, and I do not think it is disputed by anyone in this place, but there are technical as well as civil libertarian grounds on which this bill can be argued against and indeed opposed.The latest change to this bill is significant. It is the government amendments Nos 17, 21 and 25. The minister has certainly taken some questions from the opposition on the intention and the likely effect—the likely operation—of those amendments, and I am quite happy for the government to expand upon that. I want to know from the government who was consulted in the construction of these amendments. Why have they never gone near a Senate select committee process? Just because there was only one hearing, that does not mean this bill cannot be referred to the select committee process for more debate, for more consideration, because—let us face it—it was a pretty rushed process as it was. So could we just have some answers to those questions, please? Then I am quite happy for the minister to resume his tirade against the opposition. They are just a couple of questions that I would like answers to, please.10:52:005408Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know whether Senator Stott Despoja actually attended the committee hearings or read the submissions but there was a joint submission from the Internet Association and the Australian Interactive Multimedia Association which addressed this very matter which was canvassed at length during the committee hearings, which proposed the sorts of changes that are now before the Senate and to which we responded sympathetically.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—You worked with them in the construction of these amendments?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am saying they were the ones who first proposed a scheme along these lines and we have since worked the issues through with what I would regard as the two leading industry bodies in the area.10:53:005408Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would like to ask a couple of questions about making provisions for the use of filtering devices and the issues that Senator Stott Despoja has raised relating to privacy and civil liberties. There have been several publications of late that identify the types of technologies available to those who publish, or who manage or develop web content, that relate to part of a software application that sits on the back of those sites and monitors the traffic through that site. These applications are used for marketing purposes in some respects, but also to keep an eye on how people move through web content.Minister, my question is this: it became quite clear through the evidence provided at the inquiry that filtering devices sitting on proxy servers can provide another mechanism for such movements through web content to be monitored in this way. One of the concerns raised was in fact that, in mandating the provision of such filtering mechanisms, you are actually creating an environment where the opportunity to collect data on the way individuals move through web-based content is advantaged by your requirement for the technology in the first instance.Minister, this type of information is currently not protected by privacy legislation. I, and several groups within the community, have expressed concern about its ability to be manipulated for purposes other than what is originally collected. What is the government able to offer in this legislation as protection for people using the Internet against any inadvertent monitoring of their movements on the Net that arise out of the use of these proxy servers—on the surface perhaps—for filtering purposes, but which may be used for alternative purposes such as collating data for onselling to marketing companies or for people seeking to profile spending and content perusal patterns of Internet users?10:55:005408Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I suppose I have to assume that Senator Lundy knows what she is doing, but to think that she can stand up in this chamber and talk about the government mandating a requirement for proxy filters when even a cursory glance at this legislation shows that not to be the case demonstrates beyond doubt that she is pursuing an ideological agenda. On the one hand, we have put up a concrete set of proposals which we think give sufficient flexibility to accommodate new technologies to allow the industry to use whatever new devices come along—whether it is proxy filters one day, whether it is end user filter devices another. We have never ever been technology-specific, and she ought to know that. If she does not, she is being blindingly ignorant.Instead, we have had endless hours of debate which have provided ample opportunity for the Labor Party to put on the table an alternative approach. Essentially, what it comes down to is that we have a bill before the parliament; you have a do-nothing option. You have an approach which says, `We don't really want to put any standards on anyone. We hope that in the fullness of time, parents will get sufficiently concerned to do something about it.' In other words, you acknowledge there is a problem and you talk about doing something in principle. You are offering absolutely nothing in return. We have reached the low watermark of this debate when you have to get up here and pretend that we are mandating particular technologies. It is an insult to the intelligence.As I say, I assume you know what you are doing—maybe you have got carried away with your big victory in rolling the shadow minister. I can imagine why you would be a bit euphoric about that, but it is not going to do you or the party much good in the longer term. I think the sooner that we get back to trying to approach this in a sensible manner the better. No-one pretends they have all the answers; that is why you do not mandate specific technologies; that is why you have systems that breathe; that is why you have codes of practice; that is why you review the legislation. But no—yours is the do-nothing option. You are not interested in doing anything but opposing. You are not putting anything on the table, just endlessly rabbiting on. We know a filibuster when we see one. I do not know why you will not leave this matter to the shadow minister. You might be sparring at shadows but it is not even your area. If you want to come in here and share the benefits of your reading circle with us, that is something you can do in the adjournment debate.10:58:005409Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—It is always a bit of a giveaway when the minister responds to a technical question with abuse. Minister, my question is an important one and whilst I take your point about the range of filtering devices and options that will be available, there is no doubt that utilising a proxy server is a significant one and features strongly in the range of filtering technologies currently available and currently used both here and overseas. The point you make about the position of the Labor Party is becoming quite clear and anyone who is taking the time to listen to this debate will know that when you resort to making references to the Labor Party's position, it is all about putting your spin on what is very bad legislation.I ask you to return to the substance of my question, take it on the basis that proxy server filtering will be one of the options that no doubt will be, and already is being, implemented by a range of ISPs, and address the substance of my question with respect to that proxy server filtering option.10:59:005409Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am grateful to Senator Lundy for that apology, and I accept it in good spirit that she overstated her case. I am delighted that she acknowledges our approach is a flexible one.11:00:005409Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Minister, can you answer the question? What are you doing to protect information that may be collected by the use of a proxy server on people who are using the Internet in the context of this legislation? What are you doing about that? Can you please answer the question?11:00:005409Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Telecommunications Act I think goes sufficiently far for present purposes. There will always be an ongoing debate about cookies and access to unauthorised information. I have not heard you come up with any practical solutions to that. So the Telecommunications Act is the place to look.11:00:005409Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Following on from Senator Lundy, I wonder if the minister has talked about the government's need to replace the obligations and rights of parents in this matter. Can the minister give to the committee his notion of guaranteeing rights and freedoms implicit in this debate, which is basically about censorship? There are checks and balances here, but what is the view of the minister and the government of the guaranteed rights and freedoms involved in this matter as far as the average Australian is concerned?11:01:005410Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know that I heard enough of that to make a sensible answer. What is the government's attitude to protection of rights and freedoms in this area? I do not know what you are talking about. You had better elaborate.11:01:005410Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think the minister is on a short fuse and is not thinking very clearly this morning. This is difficult terrain but, basic to it, it is not just a discussion about how we restrict access to information by people but a discussion about the difficult matter of what guarantees of rights of access to information we give to people. If the minister is going to abuse the Labor Party, the Democrats or the Greens for having a different point of view, then it is quite right for us to say, `Well, what thinking has he given to the difficult matter of where he draws the line?' At no point in this discussion has he clearly stated where that line should be drawn. It is a difficult matter but, if you are going construct legislation like this, you should have that clearly in your mind.I think the minister is approaching the whole matter from a censorious point of view, and I think that is where he is making a fundamental mistake. That is why he cannot enter into this debate in the spirit of listening and responding in the way he ought to. His recent answers to questions from both Senator Lundy and Senator Stott Despoja have not been adequate for the seriousness of this debate. Is the minister feeling so defensive that he cannot give answers to those important questions? I suspect that he is, and I suspect it is because he does not have in his mind a clear right and responsibility that he, as minister, has to uphold the rights and freedoms that Australians, as adults, expect when accessing information.There is concern that this legislation is a first step towards trammelling the rights and freedoms of access to information that Australians think are very important. There would be an assuaging of that concern if the minister could simply state what he sees is the guarantee of rights and freedoms that predicate this legislation, or his attitude towards broadcasting in any form.11:03:005410Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This legislation defines the limits of absolute freedoms in a way that a whole range of legislation does. It does not mean that there is not a general commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of access to information and a whole range of other freedoms. The balance always needs to be struck in terms of the community interest that one is seeking to protect. If your starting point is that rights are absolute and therefore there should be no limitations, then we agree to disagree. We do not want to go further than the legislation permits us to go. That does not mean that, over time, there will not be other necessary changes in direction. They have got to be justified in public policy terms; they have got to constitute the greater good and, at the end of the day, it seems to me that that is the proper balance in a civilised society.11:05:005410Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We could take this further but we are going to get no specifics from the minister. But, when he uses terms like `the greater good', we have to be concerned. That is a sweeping statement which implies that the interests of a diversity of people who might not meet his concept of a majority are at stake.It is a philosophical question that understraps the minister's insecurity about the debate that is taking place in this chamber. I am just making the point; I am not going to labour this—we are not going to get far with this minister. But he ought to have clear in his mind his responsibility to restrict certain information—and all contributors here have said, `Yes, we have to find a level.' The point is that we agree to different levels. There is no doubt about that.I wanted to hear from the minister about what guarantees he gives from the point of view of the freedoms and rights of adult Australians to access the information that they might want to access. Terms like `the greater good' sound fine. They have been used by all manner of dictators down the line, and we have to be very careful with them. But that is just a sweeping statement. I would have been very pleased if the minister had been able to list his concerns in approaching this legislation regarding where the legislation might in future overstep the mark and unnecessarily trammel the rights of adult Australians to access information. We are not going to get it.11:06:005411Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I think the committee could do without the type of condescending and insulting statements made by Senator Brown about the minister. We all understand that the minister has done a sterling job on this matter. I understood what he said; Senator Brown did not. I do not know whether Senator Brown knows what common good is, and that government is simply about the administration of the common good. That is basic politics—the administration of the common good. That is what government is all about, and we are part of the government. We, the executive and the House of Representatives are part of the government. The statement by the minister, I would have thought, was a perfect statement in respect of the matter.If we are talking about censorship, I wonder whether we could all agree on the definition of censorship. Or do we all believe that everyone should be out there for himself, that there should be no discipline of individual desires or wants? Should egocentricity be pre-eminent? Is that the common good? Of course, it is not the common good—whether it be business, the market, the government, the law or social policy in this place.As I understand the concept of censorship, it goes back to the Roman censors, who had quite different responsibilities. Censorship is the application of a carefully balanced and judiciously evaluated assessment of that which is conducive to the essential good of an equal, free and life affirming society. And we are talking here about material that is prohibited material under the legislation. We are talking in the first place about illegal material. We are talking about paedophilia and the like.In the second place, we are talking about RC material—the material that would be restrictively classified under the restrictive classification. That includes ultra-extreme violence and torture depicted for the amusement of others, including extremely violent pornography which is depicted for the amusement of others.We are also talking about X category material which has been understood and defined as material which engenders in the minds of the habitual viewer a callous and manipulative orientation, largely towards women. The perception in the minds of those viewers is of women being highly promiscuous and available. That is the sort of stuff we are talking about. In the R category, there is some extremely violent material, as well as pornographic material which is equally as offensive as the X material. That is the sort of material that we are talking about here.Personally, I do not believe that the government has gone far enough. My original belief was that there were problems with this legislation and that the Australian Broadcasting Authority was a passive regulator. I have expressed that viewpoint. But I think the government should be absolutely congratulated for at least trying to do something about the matter.It is all very well to come in here and criticise the government when the industry itself has done nothing about it. I have sat here—I have not said much—and listened to Senator Lundy. It is as though she were a believer in the market: `The market will fix it up; don't worry about it, let the market deal with it.' I never thought, in all my years in the labour movement, that I would see a Labor Party member stand here and virtually espouse that viewpoint. But I am hearing it: let the market prevail. Even though it has not done anything about it until now, and it has had six years to do something about it, we are told, `Let them go.'As the minister has said, there must be a balance in regard to these matters. Practical encouragement should be given—as this legislation is doing—to the industry to develop codes. I think that is good. I hope that, if this legislation is passed, the industry will give it its best shot, because we may have to revisit it at some stage to do some of the things that have been suggested which might be far more onerous on the industry.11:13:005412Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator Harradine for that homily in defence of the minister, but he was not here earlier when the minister was issuing his tirade against people on this side of the House.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I was. I have been here all the time.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Harradine says that he has been here all the time, so let that be on the record. If so, he shows that we all have our biases in this place. If he treats what the minister had to say with equanimity but does not like criticism coming from this side, he has trespassed into the field of bias like we all do.I want to make it clear that Senator Harradine's enumeration of violent, torturous, disgustingly cruel material is what we all want to stop, not only because of the effect it has on viewers, particularly when it is portrayed as entertainment, but because of the impact it has on those people who are used at the starting point of it all.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—So you will vote for the bill?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—What Senator Harradine and Senator Alston both use is this technique, `If you don't agree with everything we do, you are totally devoid of any wish to be a protector of society and children,' and so on. That is the lowest form of debate. I ask the minister to enumerate what he sees as the freedoms and rights that are involved here because that would have been a very important starting point.Senator Harradine interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Harradine, who continues to interject at the moment, which is disorderly, says that the government is charged with the common good; that is what the common good is about. I would put it to Senator Harradine that, if that is the case, where he disagrees with the government he is not on the side of the common good. Of course we would like to see governments delivering the common good, but of course that is not what they are going to do.Senator Harradine interjecting—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Order, Senator Harradine!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is parliaments which come up with the common good because you have an opposition and you have different points of view and you have full representation of the populace. If it were left to the government alone to come up with what is in the common good we would be in all sorts of trouble. Democracies are about ensuring that the populace itself, Senator Harradine, has a say in what the government does. That is what this healthy debate is about.Senator Harradine interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—So I think, Senator Harradine, as you continue to interject, and Minister, we are getting to important basic premises here. I for one do not like to hear Senator Lundy or Senator Stott Despoja or anybody else vilified as in some way or other working against the public good because they are putting forward very cogent arguments in this debate and, moreover, are asking questions which are not being answered by the minister. He is charged to answer questions. This committee stage is about the minister supplying information, and he has very often not done that. That makes the work of this committee much harder. We all have different points of view in here. We are tackling a difficult public question on behalf of the wider community. In that circumstance maybe Senator Harradine ought to listen to his own advice and proceed from a point of goodwill.11:18:005412Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would like to make a few additional comments and reflect back on the question that the minister failed to answer. It is a question of the bill's credibility and whether or not it will deliver what the minister claims it will deliver to the community. Labor is gravely concerned that it is not capable of delivering what the minister has said it will deliver to the community, that is, the protection of children from unwanted or unsuitable content. That is our fundamental problem with this bill. We do not believe—and evidence certainly substantiates this—that the minister is able to provide the community with the solution that he claims he can through his press releases, his public statements and his diatribe across the chamber.What we see and what we have attempted to address through our series of amendments is a bill that needs to acknowledge reality. It needs to acknowledge that there is no watertight way of delivering outcomes to the community as he describes. The comments of Senator Brown are quite accurate. Our position on this bill in putting forward amendments does not mean we oppose the intent of this bill. In fact, let me say it again and again and again: Labor supports the intent of this bill. But I am, and I know many of my colleagues are, interested in legislation that has meaning and substance.There is a good analogy for this which Senator Harradine could take note of if he were still in the chamber. Out in the community you are aware of the existence of legislation but its relevance to your day-to-day experience is somewhat limited. The analogy I want to refer to is that of occupational health and safety legislation. Senator Alston, in all of your abuse this morning you failed to mention my union background, so I thought I would save you the trouble. Having spent many years on the building site, despite the presence of significant laws imposing a duty of care on employers to protect the health and welfare of employees on building sites, people are still getting killed. Accidents are still occurring. Indeed, occurrences that could have been prevented happen every day. There is legislation in place—or there was until the coalition started dismantling it—but it did not protect those workers out on those sites, despite the best of legislative intent. This bill falls into that category. It might have the best of legislative intent and be supported by everyone in this chamber, but its ability to actually deliver those outcomes is what is in question. That is why we are questioning it and why we are seeking to amend it.I think it is an issue of public and, indeed, social responsibility on behalf of this parliament not to mislead the community, not to lull them into a false sense of belief that if you go online you will be protected, in the same way that you can cannot say to any building worker walking on a site: `You are not going to get killed.' There is always a risk. So, Minister, that is the Labor Party's concern. It is one of credibility and one of presenting an issue with a spin and in a public way. Your attempt right throughout this morning was to try to position the Labor Party as in some way opposing the intent of this bill. The more you say that, Minister, the more you are exposing your own vulnerabilities with respect to the weaknesses in this bill because you have nothing else to fall back on.11:21:005413Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have been provoked into responding so I might as well put it on the record. As a former member of the Builders Labours Federation and one who worked long and hard in the service and was forced to pay extortionate union fees—2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—You chose to pay.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I did not choose; absolutely not. No ticket, no start.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—You were prepared to take the benefits. You could not believe your good luck.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—What benefits? If you want to talk about occupational health and safety, do you know how I got a job? I will tell you how I got a job. There was an ad in the paper which said, `Turn up at 7.30.' I got there about seven o'clock and there was a long queue. Eventually when we were interviewed they said, `Are you a member of the union?' I said no, and they said, `Well, you can't start.' `How do you become a member of the union?' `You've got to get a job.' I said, `I would like to have a job. I'm happy to join.' `No, sorry, can't help you.' But they said, `Come back after lunch.' I said, `Why will things be different then?' They said, `Well, they just might. Come back after lunch.' Sure enough, at lunchtime half the work force went down to the Glenferrie Hotel and stayed there for the day, and I then discovered that as long as you gave an hour's notice you got a full day's pay.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—You said, `Thanks very much.'LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I did say thank you very much. This was a market opportunity and I was happy to fill it. When I finally got a note from Paddy Malone, who was the BLF secretary at the time, giving me a notice of intention to prosecute for not paying my union dues the following year, I rang him up and said, `This is outrageous. You can't sue me.' He said, `No, we don't sue. This is just our way of culling the records. Thanks for telling us.' So that is what I got out of the Builders Labourers Federation.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—A day's pay for an hour.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, I worked for three months, carting concrete around, building a swimming pool and doing all the useful things that some people can do. But the important thing is this. Senator Lundy thinks that occupational health and safety regulations are important despite the fact that they do not guarantee that people will not have accidents. And that is precisely what we are doing here.Senator Bishop got up this morning and said, `This is a big con.' He says that we are somehow leading the public to believe we have solved all the problems. We have never claimed that, not for a moment. We recognise that this is uncharted territory. But what the public expects is for us to have a go. They do not say, `Well, there are a lot of car accidents out there, so you might as well repeal the road rules. They clearly aren't working.' They say, `Do your best. Put the road rules in place and enforce them when necessary.' A lot of crimes continue to occur, including mass murders. Does that mean we repeal the statute books, the criminal code? Of course it does not. What people expect you to do is to do your best. That is what they expect here. When they look at credibility, they say, `There is one crowd saying that this bill is not good enough, so what is their alternative?' What do they discover? Nothing. They discover a few pious, vacuous words. The opposition say, `We support the intent of the legislation.' Okay, what would you do about it? The answer is, `Nothing. We would do nothing. We would simply do what we did in the run-up to the last election, which is have a lazy, no-policy, negative, opportunistic approach whereby we try and create concerns, we try and point to all the difficulties, we try and show that people will still get access to these systems, and we hope that the public do not notice that we are not actually proposing to do anything about it.'That is where you are at, and I welcome it in a political sense because it gives us a golden opportunity. There is only one side that is serious about the issues. I want to make it quite clear that we are the only party in town that is prepared to have a go. We do not claim there are watertight outcomes, despite Senator Lundy wanting to pretend that we do. When you talk about lulling people into a false sense of security, what you are doing is conceding that there are real problems out there and that something ought to be done about them, but you are still not prepared to tackle them. You had better go back to caucus and explain why you have gone from the hard Left to the right-wing market forces faction. It is a pretty good achievement. Whether that makes you an honorary member for a day, I do not know, but I suspect strongly that you will revert to type once you have got this particular issue out of your system.Quite clearly it is an untenable position even for the Labor Party to adopt for any length of time. But the longer you continue it, the longer you want to stay wrapped up in this little ideological cocoon, the happier we will be. We are prepared to take action. We are not ruling out further action in the future. We are not for a moment suggesting this is the end of the game. We do not believe in automatic sunset clauses. We will review it, and I would be very surprised indeed if you have the same attitude next time around.Amendments agreed to.11:27:005414Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 11 to 13 on sheet 1397:(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 35 (line 25), omit "The ABA", substitute "Subject to subclause (1A), the ABA".(12) Schedule 1, item 10, page 36 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) It is a minimum requirement for a scheme formulated under subclause (1) that each Internet service provider be alerted by electronic means to the existence of a notice. Note: For example, it is not sufficient for the ABA to make notices available on the Internet (with or without security measures) without notifying Internet service providers that a notice has been issued.(13) Schedule 1, item 10, page 36 (lines 7 and 8), omit the note.Clause 47 outlines the circumstances in which the ABA may be taken to have issued access prevention notices. The opposition does not oppose subclauses (1), (2) and (3). Our intent in moving these amendments is to ensure that each ISP does receive adequate and proper notice. We want to ensure that there is effective notice. Obviously this is an electronic medium and we believe there needs to be notice by direct contact, linkage—whatever the word is—to the ISPs when the ABA is in the process of applying law which imposes obligations or affects the rights of others. Put simply, if the regulatory agency requires particular action, it is not unreasonable, in our view, that the ISP receive notice that they are required to engage in particular action within a particular time frame. We do not believe that a vague notice posted on the web or a vague publishing notice is adequate or sufficient. As I say, this is the exemplar of an electronic medium; you could not ask for a purer example. We would have thought it was a reasonably basic requirement that the medium itself be used as a form of communication. So our intent is not to oppose in any way subclauses (1), (2) and (3). I suppose this is a relatively technical argument, and there does not seem to us to be any good reason why you would oppose our amendments to use the electronic medium. They are our reasons.11:29:005415Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting the opposition amendments. I do have a question for the minister. Why does the bill, as it is currently drafted, not contain an appropriate notification mechanism? Why would there be any problem in requiring electronic notification?11:30:005415Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Again, it is a matter of flexibility and effectiveness. The bill proposes that the ABA be able to determine, again subject to disallowable instrument, an appropriate notification scheme which will allow for general advice rather than advice to each ISP. The ABA ought to be able to develop that in consultation with the industry, but given the volatility of the industry and the large number of small ISPs not necessarily known to the ABA this would be a very cumbersome and difficult to enforce approach which is highly technology specific. It seems to us that it just adds an unnecessary administrative burden. This is a process point essentially.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—It is as a minimum.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yours is as a minimum? It is not sufficient to make notices available on the Internet? I am not sure why that should be. It is for the ABA to determine the most effective means. The ABA is not going to be in the business of deliberately setting out to not notify as many people as possible, but it may be a hugely more efficient approach to simply post something on the Internet than to have to email every individual ISP and try to ensure that every address is up to date and that you know who they all are. It is a matter of administrative efficiency, but the ABA is best placed to ensure that that occurs. We think you will be unnecessarily overburdening the ABA.11:32:005415Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Yes, it is a matter of administrative efficiency. I agree with what the minister says. But it seems to me that, if you are going to be issuing a take-down notice, or one of the other steps in that system, and obligations derive from receipt of the notice and non-compliance with the notice imposes the penalty regime to be effected by the ABA, it is a pretty basic right in a democratic society that the ISP be notified that he or she has to take particular action within a particular course of time. Simply posting a notice on the web which the ISP may or may not access because it may or may not have knowledge strikes me as being an absurdity.It is a bit like a driver speeding down the road, being picked up by the radar, a prosecution notice is issued for breach of the road safety laws, the driver is never advised apart from a notice on the web, the matter goes to court, the magistrate finds the driver guilty and imposes a fine of $400. All we are seeking is that the offender be properly notified, and a vague publication to the world strikes us as being somewhat insufficient. I would not have thought that this was a major matter of principle. If the authority investigates a complaint and finds the ISP is in breach of the law, issues a take-down notice, tells the ISP to improve its game or be prosecuted and subject to 50 penalty points, then it is pretty basic that, if you want the notice taken down, the ABA is aware that the ISP has received notice. And a minimum means of doing that, as we say in clause (1A), is an electronic notice. I am surprised that the government characterises our amendment as administrative inefficiency. I would have thought that it was greatly assisting resolution of complaints about inappropriate material.11:33:005416Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There is force in what Senator Bishop says. Our approach is probably more administratively efficient, but it does have the potential to be unfair if subsequent action, including prosecution, is to be taken on the basis of a notice that an ISP claims it did not get. Probably the best way to handle this is to allow your amendment and see how it works out in practice. For example, it would be a matter of concern if a lot of ISPs kept changing their addresses and did not notify the ABA and the ABA had great difficulty in tracking down the likely offenders. As we see how this works in practice, it may be that we need to make some refinements. But I take your position of principle, which I think it really is, that you should not be held liable on the basis of a notice of which you were not aware, despite the fact that in this day and age it ought to be very possible to make sure you are aware and that is where we were trying to strike the balance. I am happy to start with the point of principle and see how it works in practice and perhaps come back to it at a later time.11:35:005416Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I thank the minister for those comments.Amendments agreed to.11:36:005416Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move government amendment (1) on sheet ER246:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 39 (after line 18), after paragraph (h), insert: (ha) procedures to be followed in order to deal with complaints about unsolicited electronic mail that promotes or advertises one or more: (i) Internet sites; or (ii) distinct parts of Internet sites; that enable, or purport to enable, end-users to access information that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult;This amendment is designed to ensure that the ISPs have procedures to deal with unsolicited email promoting or advertising access to offensive material. It is a matter that Senator Harradine referred to yesterday. The new provision will add an additional requirement for the code or standard so that it will be required to include procedures for dealing with complaints about unsolicited email.11:36:005416Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The addition is addressing the issue of unsolicited emails?11:36:005416Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Unsolicited emails that promote or advertise access to offensive material.11:37:005416Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition does not oppose this amendment.11:37:005416Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats have some concerns about this amendment. Again, I think this is one of those changes to the legislation that would have benefited from some committee investigation. I am wondering whether the minister has consulted on this occasion with other groups, be they industry or consumer groups. I am wondering whether one of the impacts of this legislative change or this amendment might be the requirement of a rather dramatically different blocking mechanism for email, which would thus introduce a whole new range of problems. I am wondering why this amendment, once again, has been introduced at a relevantly late stage and why it has not had the opportunity to be debated in a different forum. I am wondering whether this is an amendment that will introduce extra burdens. I am not quite sure whether those extra burdens will be met by success. I am wondering exactly what procedures are envisaged in the context of this amendment.11:38:005417Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The fact is that the draft code of the IIA, which has been under industry consideration now for close to three years, does contain draft provisions about unsolicited email but they are couched in general terms. I think they have expressed particular concern about unsolicited emails that promote or encourage access to offensive material. Where those matters are brought to their attention, as much as possible they will take people off their lists. We are really just following through the logical extension and saying that the codes of practice ought to deal specifically with this problem rather than in general terms where a lot of unsolicited email might nonetheless not be particularly unwelcome. But this particular category of material is generally highly unwelcome to the great majority of the population.Amendment agreed to.11:39:005417Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move government amendment (1) on sheet ER247:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 39 (line 20), omit "Internet content labelling technologies", substitute "Internet content filtering technologies (including labelling technologies)".This amendment simply broadens the category of material so that we are not simply concerned with labelling technologies but filtering and labelling technologies, and that would enable technologies to pick up non-labelled sites. These are matters that should be dealt with by industry codes and industry standards. Once again, it is simply giving a greater degree of detail about what we would expect to see in the code.11:40:005417Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition understands that this is a technical amendment and also one that broadens out the matters that might be comprehended by the code. The opposition does not oppose this amendment.Amendment agreed to.11:40:005417Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move government amendment No. 26 on sheet ER239:(26) Schedule 1, item 10, page 53 (after line 2), after subclause 76(4), insert: (4A) The ABA must not make an online provider determination unless the determination relates to a matter specified in the regulations.This amendment responds to a concern raised during the Senate inquiry about the breadth of the ABA's power to make online provider rules which would carry criminal sanctions to address this concern. The amendment inserts a qualification to clause 76 along the lines of subsection 99(3) of the Telecommunications Act. This will ensure that the ABA cannot make an online provider determination unless the determination relates to a matter specified in regulations made under the BSA. It is really saying that you have to act within power and that there has to be a specific head of power before you can make regulations pursuant to it.11:41:005417Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support this amendment precisely because it is a technical amendment, as the minister has explained. It is basically a clarification of a technical legal point about judicial or executive power in the ABA.11:42:005417Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition also supports this amendment. It is indeed the most technical amendment you could possibly comprehend. It says that an organisation created by statute can only exercise the powers granted by statute and act within the powers granted by that statute. Well, good; we support that.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANTHE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question now is that schedule 1, item 10, clause 82 stand as printed.11:42:005418Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition opposes schedule 1, item 10, clause 82. Clause 82 addresses the matter of continuing offences. The opposition has major concerns about this issue. It seems to be a developing trend to punish offenders by incorporating this concept of compounding. It is an offence that I hope we were not guilty of when we were in government, but it does strike me as a very odd way to proceed in what are relatively minor matters—not unimportant matters but relatively minor matters—in terms of breaches of the law. A breach of the law on an ongoing basis does not result in separate and ongoing distinct complaints and prosecutions, but the separate and ongoing activity results in a prejudgment, and the offender is prejudged to be guilty and the offence punishment appears to grow and grow.I think there is a similar amendment circulated by the Greens in one of the Telstra bills that we are going to be considering some time in the future—that is, if a corporation engaged in a particular activity and continued to engage in that activity, there would be a significant initial fine and then additional daily fines growing on an exponential basis. It is a concept I have some problems with. So we oppose this notion of one offence creating a continuing offence and continuing accruing penalties and liabilities.It appears to us to create a strict liability in the section. If there is a continuous offence, then surely it is material for consideration by the court in terms of penalties that might be imposed—first offence: penalty of X; second offence: penalty of 2X; third offence: penalty of 10X. It is normally the case in criminal and civil matters that each offence is adjudged on merit. If there is no acceptable reason why the violation continues, if there is no acceptable defence and you keep engaging in that activity, you are prosecuted separately and there is a higher penalty imposed on the offender. That strikes us as a better way to go. For those reasons, the ALP has problems with this concept of a continuing offence and accruing liability in terms of punishment and will oppose that provision.11:45:005418Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I simply say that this is not a unique provision. Continuing offences are contained in a whole range of legislative areas. It is always ultimately a matter of discretion on the part of the court as to whether they actually record a conviction, let alone find a material proven. What is always the case is that you argue for an appropriate penalty, having regard to the totality of the conduct. We do have a graduated range of enforcement mechanisms built into the legislation to allow flexibility in dealing with breaches and to provide the courts with the maximum degree of discretion in dealing with the seriousness of offences.Without going through them all, there are a range of areas, and it is only when you get to the contravention of an online service provider rule that a criminal offence or a continuing offence for each day of contravention would apply. The penalties are, as always, maximum penalties. They have been set to be consistent with fines for offences by narrowcasters in the Broadcasting Services Act and with Commonwealth criminal law policy in relation to monetary levels for fines. In case of serious, flagrant or recurrent breaches of online service provider rules, the ABA will be able to apply to the Federal Court for an order that an ISP cease providing a service or an ICH cease hosting content.So it really just comes down to giving the courts the widest possible armoury to take account of those who might act quite deliberately in contravention. If you had a penalty only applying at the very end of the process, then there is every incentive to ignore warnings and what might otherwise be daily offences. That does not mean that a court is going to impose inordinately heavy penalties on people who might be guilty of continuing offences, but clearly that is not something that ought to be encouraged by the legislation. If there are provisions in place that make it plain that that sort of conduct is not acceptable, then I think you give yourself the best chance of ensuring that people act in the way they are expected to act.11:48:005419Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the opposition in opposing clause 82. We are curious as to how the minister or a government could justify such a punitive extension of a single offence, but I acknowledge the minister is right that this is not a unique section of this bill. I suspect, in answer to Senator Bishop's question—he was not sure if this had operated when he was in government—that it did. I would be curious to see if the minister or his advisers could provide precedents—give us a listing of some legislation which has a similar or comparable provision. I suspect that one of the organisations that does is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. My family knows from personal experience that you can be held liable for a new offence every day, but I would appreciate confirmation of that. I think it is important to put on record that such a punitive provision is not only proposed by this government but also has existed under former governments. I do not think such provisions have a place, and for that reason we will be supporting the opposition's attempt to get rid of them.11:49:005419Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I will see if we can identify other precedents but, as I indicated, the Broadcasting Services Act does contain continuing offence provisions. We think the Telecommunications Act does similarly. I seem to recall health company customs legislation has these types of arrangements. In some instances, they actually reverse the onus of proof, which is a lot more draconian than simply having continuous offence provisions. We will see what we can get but, as I say, there are two obvious starting places in terms of this area of policy in the Broadcasting Services Act and in the Telecommunications Act. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that schedule 1, item 10, clause 82 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:50:005419Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 15 on sheet 1397:(15) Schedule 1, item 10, page 55 (line 22), after "subclause 79(4)", insert "without reasonable excuse".This is really an extension of the debate we have just had on the other matter. We seek to insert the words `without reasonable excuse' in the bill. When the agency initiates prosecution of breaches of the act, if it should come to that in due course, we are wanting the bill and the agency to take account of innocent breaches and not identical breaches or breaches that occur without knowledge. That is, the offender may have engaged in activity that might be entirely appropriate behaviour.This provides a simple protection, and it is arguably necessary that innocent offenders should have immediate defence. It was particularly relevant prior to the government accepting that one amendment of ours, whereby we were concerned that there was not adequate notice to potential offenders. Non-compliance with a notice that was simply posted on the web could have resulted in prosecution through inadequate notice to the offender. So our thinking in ALP amendment No. 15 was predicated on rejection of the other amendment. Nonetheless, `without reasonable excuse' still stands on its own and seems to us to have some justification.11:52:005419Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The concern we would have about inserting that form of words is that it tells you nothing. It is an obvious get-out clause that you could attach to every criminal provision, and it would then be left to the courts to determine what was reasonable and what was not. It would make life very difficult, for example, for prosecutors to know whether to bring a case in the first instance. They would have to be making subjective judgments about whether it was reasonable or not. These matters are normally best dealt with by the courts. You would not have a situation where someone would be convicted of infringing against the online provider rules without their knowledge because there would be an absence of mens rea. There would be no guilty intent; therefore, no offence would be committed.There is always a discretion in any event. It is not difficult to imagine that you might be able to run a range of defences, but the object of the exercise is to ensure that people comply with online provider rules. If you have a situation where you say, `You've got to comply with these rules unless you've got a good excuse,' what does it mean? Is a good excuse, `I'm sorry. The IT manager is not home from school yet,' or, `I'm sorry that I had to take two weeks off in Noosa and we couldn't get around to fixing it'?2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Or `I wasn't advised.'LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If you were not advised, you would not be guilty.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—But you still have to go through the prosecution process to prove that.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, you would not. A prosecution simply would not be brought if they were not in a position to establish proof of service. Obviously, you have the right to contest that in the courts and, if you were accepted, you would be found not guilty so you would have a reasonable excuse. It is not a satisfactory situation to say on the one hand you have to obey a service provider rule but, on the other hand, as long as you can come up with a good reason, you do not have to at all.11:54:005420Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this opposition amendment. We think it is an alternative to the earlier amendment that was lost. We think it is a reasonable addition to a punitive provision.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—This is the amendment we are waiting for—government amendment No. 1 on sheet ER248.11:55:005420Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am sorry it is an anticlimax—I will move the amendment but we have already had the debate at quite some length, so I cannot conceivably imagine why there would need to be further discussion on the subject! I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 63 (after line 6), after clause 90, insert:90A Review before 1 January 2003 (1) Before 1 January 2003, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of this Schedule. (2) The following matters are to be taken into account in conducting a review under subsection (1): (a) the general development of Internet content filtering technologies; (b) whether Internet content filtering technologies have developed to a point where it is practicable to use those technologies to prevent end-users from accessing R-rated information hosted outside Australia that is not subject to a restricted access system; (c) any other relevant matters. (3) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subclause (1). (4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report. (5) The Parliament acknowledges the Government's policy intention that, in the event that Internet content filtering technologies develop to a point where it is practicable to use those technologies to prevent end-users from accessing R-rated information hosted outside Australia that is not subject to a restricted access system, legislation will be introduced into the Parliament to: (a) extend subclause 8(1) to Internet content hosted outside Australia; and (b) repeal subclause 8(2).This is simply our review mechanism. We indicate very general terms of reference but they also have a degree of particularity. They ensure that a review must take place before 1 January 2003. That is a much more satisfactory approach than saying, `You've got to have a review but we don't care when you have it. You can have it in 3001.'2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Sit down.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—All right, I will sit down.11:56:005421Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I have a question to the minister. Paragraph (2)(c) says `any other relevant matters'. Is that to be interpreted in a general sense—that is, any other matters that might be relevant in the view of people who give evidence? Or is it any other relevant matters in the context of (a) and (b)? That is, is (c) read down to be relevant only to (a) and (b), or is it a more general intent on the part of the government?11:56:005421Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think the starting point is that the government does not want to exclude any relevant matters. So you give yourself leeway to determine those in the light of developments by 2002—that would be the likely period. Undoubtedly, the government would then consider whether there were other matters that ought to be the subject of the review.So if your question was, `Is it up to anyone to simply rock up to a review inquiry and say, "I want to talk about any matter that is relevant to me"?' the answer is no. Beyond that, the government of the day will undoubtedly want to ensure that anything that is reasonably relevant is covered by a review process, and a number of those matters could not be reasonably anticipated at this point in time because it is a fast moving industry. As you know, no matter what limitations you try to place on them, that often does not stop submitters anyway. At the end of the day, I am sure that no-one is going to be denied the opportunity to canvass matters of relevance, but the formal position would be that it would be those in charge of the review, rather than those responding to it, who would determine what is relevant.11:58:005421Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I acknowledge the point that it is not for those people who just want to put in a submission on any matter relating to anything in the world that is of relevance. The distinction I am seeking is this: is it matters relating to any issue arising from the operation of the act, or is it issues relating to the particular matters identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) being one aspect of the operation of the act? That is the question I am asking. Is it a general review relating to the operation of the act or a particular review relating to the issues identified in paragraphs (a) and (b)?11:59:005421Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is a general but comprehensive review, and all that paragraph (2) is saying is that there are some matters that must be covered. We identify a couple of them and, in effect, reserve the right to specify others that would constitute a bare minimum in terms of the review process. Otherwise, it is a comprehensive review of all aspects of the legislation.11:59:005421Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the government amendment. We support the intent of this amendment, in that we think a review is an appropriate course of action. We would have preferred the sunset clause as suggested by the opposition. Indeed, we think it would have been more appropriate to wait a little longer and design better legislation that took into account some of our concerns about desirability and workability of the legislation, but we will be supporting this amendment. I will not reiterate my questions or concerns about paragraph (5) because we raised them in the initial debate. We do have concerns with (5) in relation to the future government policies. With that proviso, we will be supporting the amendment.NaN:00:005421Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I ask the minister a question relating to the review of the operation of the legislation. Essential to the success of the operation of the legislation will be how the institution responsible in part for this operation, namely the ABA, is proceeding with its tasks. Minister, I would like to know whether or not the person or persons to undertake this review will be current serving members of the Australian Broadcasting Authority. I do not think it would be desirable for a reviewer of the operation of the legislation to come from the authority which is charged with part of the operation of the legislation. Personally, my view is that it would be desirable to have an expert or even a panel which would include parental representation or something of that order. As I see it, this does not exclude that sort of idea.The other question is whether or not paragraph 2(b) does indicate that that very vast amount of R-rated material hosted outside Australia will not be attended to if, for example, there are technologies that are able to deal with the matter and they are quite obvious and come forward before the review takes place. I ask the minister whether 2(b) would work against the implementation of the legislation or amendments to this legislation to cover that situation when it can be properly covered.12:03:005422Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I acknowledge Senator Harradine's initial point that potentially there is a conflict of interest if you were to allow one party who has been at least in part responsible for the administration of the legislation to then pass judgment on itself. So whilst none of us know who will be in government in 2002, my position is that it should be someone at arm's length who can make a dispassionate assessment of the effectiveness of the ABA and, indeed, look at whether there might be community based or other arrangements that might be more effective, either in replacement or in supplementation. Certainly, I think it requires an objective assessment.As far as the progress of technology and its ability to control R-rated material and to distinguish between adults only rather than closing down the whole site are concerned, that is why we have added in paragraph (5), to make it clear that our policy intention is to get to that point as quickly as possible but we recognise that at this stage the best advice you get is that it is not currently doable. In a sense that is loading 2(b), but I think quite rightly so because, as you would point out and have in the past, there is no distinction in principle between R-rated material onshore and offshore; it is simply a question of effectiveness of prosecution. Even though it might be more difficult, even impossible at this point, as soon as it becomes possible to align the domestic and the international then the more efficacious the overall approach is.We would certainly expect that the review would be looking at ways of advancing the issue; in other words, not simply starting from scratch and wondering about the issue but giving it riding instructions about how it can best be achieved.12:05:005422Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As we are coming to the end of the debate, I would like to remind the minister that I asked a question yesterday—which I was happy for him to take on notice—in relation to a case study involving the Rabelais article. I am looking for an assurance that that answer will be forthcoming from him or his advisers. I do not need it now but I would like an assurance that I will get an answer.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Was this about your satirical shoplifting?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What did I say I would do?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I asked you a question which I was happy for you to take on notice. In fact, I am happy to draft it or write it as a question on notice and lodge it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I will send you a draft answer too, if you like.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—That is a very scary admission, Minister.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Only a draft!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—One of my questions related to the impact of this legislation and how this article would be treated as an article that was published offline as distinct from being published online and whether or not it could be used in the case that is before the courts. Your advisers are nodding, so I suggest it is all in hand. I will certainly write the question; I am not sure about the answer. 12:06:005423Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thought we had canvassed the matter to the point of saying that if the material online would otherwise have constituted a criminal offence offline, then it would be caught by the legislation. However, if you are able to justify the contention that this was merely a satirical piece that no-one would take seriously, then I presume it would be very difficult to establish criminal intent. I have not seen the material. My subscription lapsed some years ago. Therefore, I will see whether we can add further to the issue. But if there are matters before the court, perhaps we would be reluctant to make a definitive statement.12:07:005423Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition will be opposing this amendment on the basis of the content of paragraph (5). It appears to us that the government is guilty of the sin that it has accused us of in arguing for a sunset clause—that it prejudges a review and is counter to the development of the industry. Who knows what is going to happen in three or four years time? Who knows what the government of the day will be? Who knows what the policy position of the government of the day will be? It is a bit like acknowledging motherhood. The amendment is certainly not a harmful thing but it has no value or utility at all.I do not want to delay the chamber; I just advise that we are going to oppose this amendment on the basis of the content of paragraph (5). We have had a lengthy and extensive debate on the review/sunset clause issue. I will not delay the chamber any longer; I just advise the government that we will not be supporting this amendment.Amendment agreed to. Question put: That the bill, as amended, be agreed to. 12:13:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)34Abetz, 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. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.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.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Knowles, S. C. Hutchins, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Denman, K. J.Minchin, N. H. Schacht, C. C.Payne, M. A.Bolkus, N.Vanstone, A. E. Lees, M. H.* denotes tellerQuestion resolved in the affirmative.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.5423Motion (by Senator Alston) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time. 12:17:005424Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The opposition wishes just to make a few very brief comments at the conclusion of debate on this bill. We opposed the second reading of the bill because nearly all of our amendments, with one minor exception, had been defeated. We foreshadowed to the government early on in these proceedings that there were two or three matters that were critical to our attitude to the bill—firstly, the review and sunset clause, and other matters. We do not intend to waste the time of the chamber and divide at this stage, but we do indicate that we are opposed to the passage of the bill.12:18:005424Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Similarly, the Democrats put on record our opposition to this bill. As clearly stated throughout the Senate select committee process and the debate on this legislation, the Democrats support the intent of the legislation—that is, to establish some kind of regulatory regime for online services that ensures that minors are protected from information that may be considered illicit, inappropriate, offensive or, indeed, illegal.However, we are concerned about two aspects of this bill—its unworkability and its undesirability, in particular the difficulties in relation to civil liberty concerns. So we, similarly, put on record our opposition. We will not seek to divide, but we look forward to a review process in a few years time to hopefully expose just how difficult this act has been.12:18:005424Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The bill now goes into law, but the job for the government just begins. There is a very strong responsibility on the government's shoulders to ensure that this sort of legislation does not intrude on the rights and freedoms of Australians, and particularly the time-honoured rights and aspirations for people to see and read what they see fit for themselves that are held by Australians throughout this country. There is a need for a move to ensure, as successive speakers have said, that some of the dastardly stuff— particularly, violent anti-social stuff that can be purveyed in this means—is regulated.The government thinks it has the right formula. It has said that it will review this matter and bring it back to the parliament. Let us see how it goes. But following a debate during the committee session this morning, I again remind the government that it is there to look after the interests of all Australians, even those who have a different point of view. There is a very heavy burden here to protect time-honoured liberties which most Australians aspire to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills5424r7755424Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.12:20:005424Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 is relatively straightforward in intent. The bill proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The legislation will cap the cost that can be claimed for the reimbursement for discharging the USO by the national USO provider, Telstra. The cap for the financial year 1997-98 will be set at a level no higher than $253.2 million. This figure of $253 million is not significantly different from recent years.It should be noted at the outset that capping of the USO allows recovery of delivery costs from alternate carriers and is for services already delivered to persons and entities in rural and regional Australia. Accordingly, it is fair to say that the bill allows Telstra to recover from its competitors some of the costs properly borne by those competitors in delivering the universal service obligation. It does not allow Telstra to recover all of those costs, and I shall return to this point at a later stage.The USO is a core regulatory obligation of the telecommunications industry. It has the aim of ensuring that all persons in Australia have access to a minimum level of telecommunications services. Those services are standard telephone services, pay phones and prescribed carriage services. Telstra is currently designated under the act as the universal service provider. The origins of the USO are outlined in the Senate committee report. The act requires Telstra to submit a claim each year for its net universal service cost. In 1993-94, this figure was agreed by all carriers to have been $230 million. It has been indexed by consumer price index movements since that time. Optus, Vodafone and other carriers pay a share of Telstra's NUSC, dependent on the market share obtained by each of those individually relevant carriers.Earlier this year, Telstra claimed the cost of the NUSC had increased from an agreed figure of around $250 million to around $1.82 billion. The claim was submitted to the Australian Communications Authority and it is fair to say that the figure claimed by Telstra both startled and shocked industry observers and participants. The ACA has cautioned that previous figures that were industry agreed were based on costing models that have been demonstrated to contain assumptions that were out of date or inappropriate. Without endorsing the veracity of the Telstra claim of $1.8 billion for USO provision, the ACA signalled that a figure well in excess of $250 million might be arguable.In this context, the government urges passage of the bill because, if the increased claim of $1.8 billion was upheld, the seven-fold increase in levy contributions would be likely to severely damage all of Telstra's competitors to the detriment of continued competition in the telecommunications industry. The government goes on to say that, even if the claim were significantly reduced on ACA assessment, the uncertainty about potential liabilities created by the claim during the assessment period had the potential to cause serious destabilisation in the telecommunications industry and hence deter investment. The opposition is of the view that there is some truth to these arguments put by the government. The response is obvious, however, and goes to two simple points. Firstly, it is surely in everyone's interests to have an accurate calculation of the cost of USO provision. This is a desirable efficiency constraint and can also assist in resolving resource allocation and resource priority matters. Secondly, if the cost of the USO is anywhere near $1.8 billion, one asks why the government permits predominantly overseas owned competitor carriers to enjoy such a huge public subsidy and why that subsidy should be paid by the owners of Telstra. It is one thing to have full and effective competition. It is another thing for the government to tolerate the destruction of its own $60 billion asset by allowing competitor services to avoid payment of their fair share of the USO. I trust the government will respond to both of these points when it responds in this debate.As is common knowledge, Telstra's competitors strongly oppose the $1.8 billion claim and support the cap measure contained in this bill. It would be incomprehensible if their position was otherwise, as the effect of the legislation is to cap the amount Telstra can charge the other carriers. As well, the government has asked the ACA to review USO cost methodology generally in order to address this issue for future years. I understand that report will come down in July. The opposition will examine that report with interest and also consider, with a careful eye, the response of the government.The recent Senate select committee report on the proposed second stage of Telstra privatisation heard a lot of evidence on the issue of cost calculation of the USO and also on the notion of competitive tendering as an aid to reduction of costs whilst, at the minimum, maintaining all existing services. It is fair to say that the cost alleged by Telstra of $1.8 billion for USO provision does focus the mind of interested parties. As was said in another place, there is undoubtedly a fair amount of ambit in Telstra's claim. However, it does raise the issue of open and public scrutiny of claims of major corporations that affect the public interest. That is why the government decision to have the ACA review the methodology of the claim was the appropriate response and why the opposition will examine that report with interest in due course.The bill grants the minister the power to determine different amounts for the USO in the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. That power may be exercised, in the language of the bill, `to reflect any changed circumstances'. That process for determining different amounts is by way of a disallowable instrument. If the minister should choose to make a disallowable instrument in respect of the USO, the opposition anticipates parliament would scrutinise that instrument closely and that parliament would have regard to the ACA review of methodology of the USO cost calculation and the degree of compliance by government with the recommendations of the ACA. So we put the government on notice that we will have a continuing interest in resolution of those matters.By way of summary, the opposition makes the following points. The bill caps the cost that can be claimed for reimbursement for discharging the USO. That cap is $253 million for services already provided by Telstra in the 1997-98 financial year. If the bill is passed, Telstra will be able to recover a share of the cost of the USO provision from alternate carriers. That share will be calculated having regard to the market share held by each of the competitors at the relevant time. Telstra now argues the actual cost of USO delivery is $1.8 billion and the methodology that arrives at that figure is currently being reviewed by the ACA. The opposition will examine that report with interest and similarly looks forward to the government response to the ACA review.In deciding to support this bill, the opposition has listened to the comments of all of the carriers and interested industry observers. While some observers have expressed concern about a legislative cap because of possible unintended consequences in terms of future funding for the USO, it is fair to say there is widespread support for passage of the bill. In particular, the opposition has had regard to the need for industry certainty in terms of planning and investment. This is particularly the case in an industry which consumes huge amounts of capital and which is subject to constant change and innovation. Accordingly, Madam President, the opposition will support the bill.12:30:005426Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Australian Democrats believe that the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 is fraught with social, equitable and legal problems. We do not support the placing of an arbitrary limit on the universal service claim, and we do not support this bill. The problems that we foresee with this bill and the reasons why we do not support it are set out in our minority report to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill.I must say that it is curious that, notwithstanding that the government is pushing for the full sale of Telstra, it is still quite happy to use the company to absorb a disproportionate share of the substantial losses incurred in fulfilling the USO. That is the case even though Telstra has the right to have its claim determined by the ACA and to recover part of its losses from other carriers in proportion to market share.I wish to make it clear that the Democrats unreservedly support the universal service obligation and we applaud the concept of all Australians having equitable access to a standard telephone service. We would like to see an increase in the standard of the standard telephone service, but I will deal with that issue a little later.Division 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 sets up a mechanism for determination of the amount of levy credit to which the universal service provider is entitled. Essentially, that involves the carrier—in this case, Telstra—lodging a claim under section 183, along with some additional explanatory material. The ACA is then obliged to give a copy of the claim to all other carriers. The ACA then investigates the claim under section 192 and determines the amount that each carrier owes. This is a calculation based on market share. The amount calculated is then payable under section 203.Telstra did lodge a claim for $1.8 billion, and the ACA is currently in the process of investigating that claim. I understand that it is likely that a final assessment will be made by the end of June. This raises, I think, some questions such as why is it necessary to introduce this bill at this point in time. Why not wait until that advice is actually available?Under the present regulatory scheme established by this government only two years ago, the ACA is the arbiter in matters like this. It is the organisation which is empowered to and has the expertise to deal with these issues. The arbitrary intervention by the government raises the question: why have a process at all of independent assessment when the government is so quick to override that process?The Democrats see it as completely inappropriate for the government to intervene in the manner that is proposed. The ACA's preliminary estimate is that the cost of providing the USO will be not $1.8 billion but between $425 million and $600 million. The claim will therefore be adjusted accordingly. This will mean that instead of being able to recoup between $63 million and $90 million from the rest of the industry, Telstra will be able to recover only $38 million. That is a shortfall of between $25 million and $52 million. I am not a Telstra shareholder but, if I was, I would be questioning why the company in which I have invested is arbitrarily being required to bear this additional burden to benefit other telecommunications carriers.In the next couple of days the Senate will be dealing with the package of bills which propose the sale of the Commonwealth's remaining interest in Telstra. Telstra's service standards will be a significant part of that debate. I believe they also relate to this bill. The Democrats are concerned at the serious decline in the standard of services which Telstra provides to customers in rural and remote areas of Australia. This specifically relates to connection and repair times. I would like to quote from a submission by the Consumers Telecommunications Network to the inquiry into this bill. They make the comment: Australian residential consumers value the provision of universal service highly and would be dismayed if cost-containment measures were found in practice to result in a lack of available funds to provide a service of acceptable equivalent quality for all Australians.We are also concerned at the growing disparity between the range and quality of services offered and taken for granted by, I must say, consumers in cities compared to the very basic services which are offered to consumers in rural and remote Australia. The Democrats' position is that the standard telephone service should be improved. We will be addressing that when the Senate reaches the Telstra sale bills.The further issue arises as to whether the result of this bill will be to compulsorily acquire property otherwise than on just terms from Telstra in contravention of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. I am concerned that the government is simply not taking this issue seriously. In the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the prospect of unconstitutionality is dismissed in just one line:The Commonwealth is satisfied that this is not the case.We would like to see—and we believe that the public ought to be allowed to see—the legal advice on which that conclusion has been based. The government acknowledges that its legal liability in terms of just compensation could be as high as $240 million. This is a very significant amount. The potential for that sort of liability warrants, I think, very serious consideration. I understand that Telstra has legal advice that the bill is likely to involve a breach of section 51(xxxi). I would like the minister to elaborate on this issue and to table the government's advice.One of the reasons enunciated for the passage of this bill is that any substantial increase in the USO cost claim will meet a corresponding increase in the contribution required by the non-Telstra carriers. It is suggested that this burden could be so high as to put one or more of those carriers out of business and it is said that this would have significant adverse effects on competition.Whilst we understand the need to foster competition in the telecommunications indus try, I am very concerned at the artificiality of an industry in which a number of the participants are sustained only because the major player is forced to subsidise those participants. In their submission to the inquiry, the Western Australian government made the point that—and I quote:It would appear morally suspect to load the incumbent carrier with additional cost merely to protect the profitability of new entrants.We agree with that comment. The government has had the power to tender out the provision of USO services since the commencement of the new Telecommunications Act on 1 July 1997. The 1997 act foresees different carriers fulfilling the USO in different parts of Australia. There is the potential for the tendering out of USO services to perhaps reduce the cost of providing those services.The question that I would ask the government is: why has it taken so long for the tendering process to commence? I understand that expressions of interest in relation to tendering were only called for last month, yet the legislation has been in place for two years. I would also like to ask whether that tendering out of the USO services could have avoided the alleged problem that this bill is trying to address. The Australian Democrats have an open mind on the tendering process, but we take the view that tendering might at least have had the advantage of testing Telstra's competitors' claims that the USO is too high.In summary, this bill gives rise to four areas of very significant concern to the Democrats. They are: the arbitrary expropriation of millions of dollars from Telstra; the risk of legal action based on a possible contravention of the Constitution; the potential for a further reduction in services to rural and remote areas as Telstra attempts to contain costs because of only being reimbursed a fraction of its real entitlement; and the degradation of the role of the ACA as the independent arbiter of the national universal service cost.We will not be moving any amendments at the committee stage because we believe the appropriate course of action is to decline passage of this bill and allow the natural course of events to progress—that is, for the cost claim to be determined by the ACA and for carriers to be levied in accordance with the formula already set out in the legislation.12:40:005428Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 is full of inconsistencies and curiosities. It is inconsistent insofar as it flies in the face of the Australian Communications Authority's review of Telstra's universal service plan. This review was requested by the minister, and it has been acknowledged by the government that the review is likely to affect the universal service obligation.The bill is inconsistent insofar as it flies in the face of the current balanced process set up whereby the Australian Communications Authority reviews the net universal service costs. This process was set up by the government and now they are usurping their own process. It is inconsistent insofar as it flies in the face of the work done by Bellcore International to develop the costing model for the universal service obligation. This modelling was commissioned and paid for by the government—that is, the taxpayer—and now they are essentially ignoring the model.It is inconsistent insofar as it flies in the face of the aims of the USO itself. The object of the USO aims is to ensure that all people in Australia should have equitable access to a certain standard of telecommunications. This proposed cap jeopardises these objects.The Greens (WA) have serious concerns about these inconsistencies in the bill. While we acknowledge the set of circumstances that precipitated the bill, we are not convinced that this is the best way to resolve the enormous claim of $1.8 billion by Telstra for 1997-98.I would like to look at the four major inconsistencies in more detail. First, I refer to the process. The minister currently has a report from an ACA review of Telstra's universal service plan. This review related to whether the plan was satisfactory and whether the government should request Telstra to upgrade certain aspects of the plan. Particular attention was to be given to the supply of interim services using satellite phones, arrangements for people with disabilities, payphone services, and connection and fault repair times, particularly in remote communities. This is set out on page 1 of the ACA's Universal Service Plan Review Discussion Paper.The issue is an issue of process. It is clear that this review has implications for the content of the universal service obligation. The content of the USO obviously has implications for the potential cost of the USO. Indeed, the impact of the review is specifically acknowledged in the government's committee report at page 2, where it says:The outcome of this review could also affect the future cost of the USO.The Greens have a strong commitment to proper process and especially thorough consultation with stakeholders. As such, we are generally supportive of reviews such as the one instigated by the minister and conducted by the ACA. Obviously, carrying out a review and reporting is not enough to meet real criteria associated with good process. The minister has not responded to this report which was completed at the end of March. The report is highly relevant to the consideration of the issues in this bill. Placing a cap on costs obviously circumvents the outcomes of this review to a large extent. If the ACA recommends that Telstra's plan should be extended in certain areas, or that they should explore certain expensive technical options to customers, such as satellite phones in the interim period before a phone line is connected, clearly, this is poor process.Let us look at the role and independence of the ACA. The second inconsistency relates to this matter. Not only has the minister shafted a legitimate and relevant review that has been conducted by the ACA, but this bill creates a precedent for sidelining the ACA as an independent arbiter of the NUSC and also has the reverberating effect of degrading the independence and authority of the Australian Communications Authority.The current process is clear. Telstra, as the current universal service provider, submits a claim for the costs of providing the USO. The ACA acts as an auditor and evaluates the legitimacy of Telstra's claim. As such, they have clear authority and an independent role. The government has provided no reasons for usurping this role.Debate interrupted.Matters of Public Interest542910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I now call on matters of public interest.542912:45:005429Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I want to discuss today what is undoubtedly the most distinctive feature of Australia's electoral laws—the fact that our federal laws enforce a system of compulsory voting. Australia is alone in the English speaking world in compelling its eligible citizens to register their attendance at an official polling place. Compulsion has been part of Australia's electoral laws since 1911 when voter registration was made compulsory. In 1924, this was extended to making voting itself compulsory. It is now an anachronism and an anomaly.Voluntary voting is an issue which requires community debate and some level of bipartisan, or cross-party, support. The government cannot move alone. It has confirmed that the current laws on compulsory voting will remain. However, our mature democracy is crying out for a debate on compulsory voting, and its underlying rationale is worth examining.Voluntary voting has recently hit the media again, albeit briefly, in my own home state of Victoria regarding the case of Melissa Manson of Melbourne, 35 years old and mother of four. Melissa Manson did not vote in the federal elections of 1993 and 1996. On 15 April, she was fined $90 for not voting and, as the fine was not paid, she spent Thursday last week in gaol. Melissa Manson is not a radical activist or anything of the sort; she simply did not like any of the candidates in those two elections enough to vote for them and was not prepared to go through the sham of fronting up to have her name crossed off the roll. Ms Manson was convicted because of her `convictions'.In 1996, 357,000 people failed to vote and were sent please explain letters. About 200,000, or 60 per cent, had reasons that the Electoral Commission found valid—for example, hospitalisation. About 30,000 paid the $20 failure to vote penalty. However, around 9,000 were summonsed and fined in court. Including Melissa Manson, a total of nine people were gaoled over the 1996 election, most of them in South Australia.A total of 421,000 please explain letters were sent out after the 1998 election, an increase of nearly 20 per cent over 1996. Around 20,000 summons have been issued—a doubling of that number issued in 1996. The 1998 election was the most important since Federation. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said so. However, not even the risk of gaol or fine was enough to motivate over 400,000 people to turn up to vote. Many more only turned up because it was easier to do that than pay the fine.Some of the reasons given by non-voters that are not acceptable to the Electoral Commission include drunkenness—apparently if you are hung over from a heavy Friday night, you are just the sort of voter our parliamentary democracy needs to determine the fate of the GST. Others take the excuse making even less seriously, with several X-files like explanations of alien capture as reasons for nonattendance. Other excuses also lacked evidentiary force. The Melbourne Sunday Herald Sun quotes the best non-valid excuse as `too busy having sex', presumably for the whole of the 10 hours that the booths were open. For some reason, these are the people whom we actually try to compel to vote.This brings us to a fairly fundamental question about what sort of democracy we live in. I believe, as I suspect Melissa Manson does, that people should not be compelled to vote—as apparently do a significant portion of our population. A recent Herald Sun survey indicated that 63 per cent of those voting were opposed to the ridiculous notion of going to gaol as a sanction for not voting. Mind you, it was a non-compulsory survey!The debate about compulsory voting often revolves around the issue of which party would tend to benefit the most. This is understandable, given the heavy reliance of the major parties upon the administrative arms of their organisations. It is indeed a brave decision to contemplate the move to completely new strategies of campaigning. Although this appears to be a comfortable decision to make, it lacks the moral weight, as I shall argue.The ALP argue for the retention of compulsory voting because they feel that, under a voluntary system, they would lose proportionately more votes through non-voting than would the Liberal Party. In protecting their electoral interests, the ALP usually couch their arguments in the language of preventing certain disadvantaged groups from being disenfranchised—a result that they presume would occur under voluntary voting. Senator Faulkner's speeches in 1997 on the Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill are a case in point.The flaws of the approach by the ALP regarding compulsory voting are twofold. Firstly, it adopts the usual conceited approach, which is the `we know what is best for you' mentality. In this case, in spite of your own opinion on the matter, voting is deemed to be good for you and hence you should be forced to do it. Anyone who has even a passing respect for the principle to freely associate and, equally, the right not to associate should reject this mentality.Secondly—and this severely undermines what little moral credibility existed in the first reason—there is the notion of protecting one's own electoral interests. Again, I refer to Senator Faulkner's speech as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on 17 June 1997 as a typical example of the Labor line. Similarly, when Senator Carr outlined the groups that he also believed would be disenfranchised by the voluntary vote, he finished with the line:. . . and it especially disadvantages a group in the community who are known to be supportive of the republic.Labor's political motives now become apparent: replace the words `the republic' in Senator Carr's comment with the words `what I believe in' and I would suggest that this is a truer indication of the motives of the ALP in their support of compulsory voting.Many Liberals agree `in principle' with the idea of voluntary voting but are concerned about the unknown effects it may have in elections. However, on this front the jury is still out. I refer to a recent paper of March 1999 in the journal Electoral Studies by Simon Jackman of the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. Jackman investigates the so-called `conventional wisdom' which holds that the conservative parties would gain under voluntary voting in Australia. He strongly qualifies this idea by noting that there have been only two comprehensive studies on this issue in Australia. These were in 1986 and 1996, by McAllister and Mackerras. Further, Jackman notes that Liberal Party MHR and former Victorian Liberal Party state director Mr Petro Georgiou rejected these findings. Jackman's study concluded:In short, there is tremendous uncertainty about what is widely understood to be a profound change in the conduct of Australian electoral politics.My point in all of this is that this issue should not be driven by predicted electoral outcomes by political parties but by principle. As I have stated earlier, the jury is still out in terms of electoral effects, but restricting the debate to voter outcomes is to adopt the approach of the ALP. The ALP's position is founded on electoral opportunism pure and simple. This ought to be rejected.Voluntary voting is an issue of principle, and that principle is the democratic right to vote for the candidate who you believe will best represent you—and this should include the right not to choose a candidate. Back in the 1970s, the Liberals supported a compulsory arbitration system due to fear of the unknown risks of workplace bargaining. Thirty years later, the primacy of workplace agreements is supported widely, including by most of the ALP. Just as we have matured in the workplace, so should we mature at the ballot box.Compulsory voting does not protect democratic freedoms. How could anyone argue that, in order to protect your democratic freedoms, you will imprisoned unless you exercise your democratic right to vote? As Lawrence Money humorously noted about Melissa Manson in the Age on April 30 this year: . . . technically, if Ms Manson were jailed it would not be for refusing to be compelled to exercise her freedom of choice but for refusing to be compelled to turn up to refuse to exercise her freedom of choice.Ms Manson decided that no candidate was worth voting for. What moral principle in our society allows the full force of the law, to the point of gaol, to compel her to pick up her ballot paper and return it blank to the ballot box?Democracy is not protected by compelling people to be in a particular place at a particular time every three or so years. If advocates really believed all the rhetoric about why forcing people to vote is good for them, they ought to be advocating measures to ensure people fill out their ballots correctly. In the interests of protecting people's freedom, perhaps the Electoral Commission should be authorised to ensure that an individual not just collects their ballot but actually fills it out correctly! I would think not.There are some who argue that if we have compulsory voting we should put a box on the ballot paper for `None of these'. Others go further and suggest people should be able to elect `No-one' if none of the candidates are any good. All of these suggestions and some even more ridiculous ones are put forward to get around the moral and philosophical objections to forced voting.I am reminded of the system in the Soviet Union where conscripts in the military would be marched in to cast a vote for the one person whose name was on the ballot paper. The full oppressive force of the state, with the promise of the Gulag, was used to ensure compliance. We do not have a Gulag and we do not march people in, but we do gaol them if they do not turn up, accept a ballot paper and return it to the ballot box—even a blank ballot paper.There are around 20 countries in the world where voting is compulsory. These include Bolivia, Cyprus, Egypt, Honduras, Singapore, Venezuela and Australia. They do not include countries such as Great Britain, Canada, France, Holland, Germany, the rest of the European Union, Japan or the United States of America. These are countries that have democracies as robust as anywhere else in the world. I argue that Australia has nothing to fear in contemplating a voluntary voting system. It is a debate that this country should embrace and should embrace soon in the interests of freedom.543212:57:005432Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Lees says she is on a mission to make the GST fair.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is mission impossible.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—To make the GST fair, in the words of Tom Cruise, is mission impossible. You cannot make the GST fair. The newspapers this morning contain several articles about what a truly ramshackle tax system we will have if the GST is entrenched as a new tax system. Let me state very clearly yet again that the Labor Party is opposed to the GST. Labor supports tax reform; what we do not support is a regressive tax that is applied to everything we buy. Remember, even if food is exempted, there is still a tax on clothes. Exempt books, there are still magazines. Exempt bus fares, there are still taxi fares. Exempt bread rolls, there is still a tax on rolls with a cheese topping. Exempt bread, there is still a tax on a pie and sauce at the footy. The necessities of life are still under threat with any deal the Democrats may do with this government.I note that the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday reported that the Democrats believe that Labor Party stooges are being organised to ring in and to fax them to register opposition to any deal with the government. I have got some news for the Democrats: if people are ringing, faxing and emailing the Democrats, they are not from the Labor Party. They are probably the same thousands of people, small business people, pensioners, ordinary Australians, that faxed, phoned and wrote to Senator Harradine to register their short-lived relief when they thought the GST was dead and buried. I suspect they are real people communicating their concerns to the Democrats.So for Senator Lees there are some hard policy decisions that have to be made in the next few weeks with not only those people but all Australians in mind. Labor wants to make sure that any decision of the Democrats that is made is made for the right reasons. After all, the Australian Democrats are the party that says it wants to `keep the bastards honest'. But they want it both ways.On Monday, Senator Lees made it clear that rank and file party members will not have a say in the negotiations of the government on the GST. She was asked by a journalist: `If the deal is struck, will it have to be referred to Democrat members?' Senator Lees answered: `No it won't, because we're within policy.' I ask the question: is it within policy? Democrat taxation policy was balloted to members in June 1998. The results were reported in December 1998. There are two relevant areas concerning the GST package. First, under item 6, members agreed to `option C', which states:The mix of taxation between direct (income) and indirect (expenditure) sources shall be restructured to increase the proportion of direct tax (increasing income tax and/or wealth taxes) relative to indirect tax.That is, Democrat policy demands no tax mix switch from direct to indirect taxation. The government's GST package involves a $19 billion tax mix switch from direct to indirect taxation—a net $6 billion increase in indirect tax plus a $13 billion decrease in direct tax. Unless the Democrats are able to negotiate this away, they will be supporting a measure in direct breach of their own balloted policy.Senator Lees is wrong. The government's GST package is so far outside the Democrat policy that if the Democrats' internal processes mean anything at all a new ballot should be held. The Democrat position, as far as we know it, is to cut back some of the tax mix switch as follows: the $6 billion increase in indirect tax would be reduced by the Irish food option, that is $4 billion. However, the Democrat option of denying $2.5 billion in diesel fuel credits will actually increase indirect tax by that amount, wiping out 60 per cent of the food measure. Any change to income taxes would have to be enormous to even get the Democrats to their policy starting point.But the second breach of Democrat policy relates to the flat rate GST that they are moving towards. Items 7(B) and 8(B2) in the Democrat ballot specifically allow that `the indirect tax system shall be restructured to allow for tax to be levied on the provision of services as well as on the production of goods' but only if the GST is `set at several different rates'. The government's proposal is for a flat rate 10 per cent GST. Democrat members specifically rejected the proposal 8(B1) that `an indirect tax shall be set at a flat rate with almost no exceptions'.Let me remind the Senate of the Democrats' tax policy at the last election. It was based, I presume, on the June members' ballot. It stated on page 3:We have engaged in a full debate within our party on the best way forward, as well as trying to broaden out the national debate beyond the issue of a GST.What did the policy say? What were the Democrats' promises? Most importantly, it sets out the Democrat `non-negotiables' and they include `taking the GST off food', `taking the GST off books', `restructuring the tax cuts to reduce the benefits to high income earners', `restructuring the new tax concessions on diesel and petrol'. These were all non-negotiable. These were all core promises and people who voted for the Democrats were entitled to believe that the party that pride themselves on keeping the bastards honest would themselves be honest—that non-negotiable means just that: it means non-negotiable.The Democrats' tax policy went on to describe what was negotiable. They listed a series of issues that were `placed on the table for negotiation'—tourism packages sold offshore, payroll tax, federal funding of local government, family assistance. So we had two categories of policy—`non-negotiable' and `on the table'. What did we hear last Sunday? The leader of the Democrats on the Sunday program took every non-negotiable—that is, food, diesel, fuel, books, tax cuts—and put them on the table to be negotiated away. Despite their promise contained within their policy document, nothing is now non-negotiable. They are all now non-core, negotiable promises. The transcript of the Sunday program is very interesting. It reads:OAKES: Now, you went to the election last October, saying a number of things were non-negotiable in your tax proposals. One of them was taking the GST off books.LEES: Mm-hm.OAKES: Non-negotiable then, still non-negotiable?LEES: It's all still on the table and . . .OAKES: That's different from being non-negotiable?LEES: . . . absolutely everything that we took to the election is on the table . . .OAKES: But, Senator, the Democrats exist, you say, to keep the bastards honest. You told the people these things are non-negotiable . . .LEES: Absolutely.OAKES: Now you're in discussion with the government, you won't say that they're non-negotiable. What are we to conclude?LEES: Well, they are on the table . . .OAKES: But are they non-negotiable?LEES: (Sighs) All of the issues that we took to the election are on the table at the moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been taken off by either side. Can I stress that? That when . . .OAKES: Okay. You were the one who said they were non-negotiable, back in October.. . . . . . . . .OAKES: . . . If they're now being negotiated, that's something different.LEES: The entire package is being negotiated.OAKES: Okay. Now, you say that restructuring tax cuts to reduce the benefits to high income earners, that was non-negotiable.LEES: That is on the table . . . That is exactly right. Everything that was non-negotiable—everything—is now on the table. What we want to know is what is going on under the table. Let us have a look at what the Democrats have promised. Try Senator Lees in the Australian on 18 May 1999:It's not an ambit claim. We're not about to start taking items out.On food, the Sunday Telegraph on 11 October stated:Democrats Deputy Leader Natasha Stott Despoja called for all food, including restaurants and fast- food outlets, to be exempt from the GST. ". . . I don't believe we can say to people on low incomes, it's okay to buy supermarket food but it will be more expensive for you to have a takeaway burger or confectionary."On books, at the campaign launch for the Democrats Senator Lees stated:Democrat senators and lead candidates have all pledged that we will not at any time—not at any time—support the new tax on food or on books.On tourism, on 20 May 1999 Democrat spokesman John Schumann said:We have spent a lot of time and resources going around the country promoting our platform on zero rating of travel packages. We are not now, nor will we, move away from this aspect of the GST.What about the Australian Democrats' policy on `truth in political advertising'? Let me quote that:Australians deserve much better political advertising standards. The Australian Democrats believe that legislation is necessary to prevent false or misleading political advertising. This would help to restore trust in politicians and the political system.If trust is the bottom line, why have we seen this redefinition in relation to issues that previously were non-negotiable now being on the table? If trust is the bottom line for the Australian Democrats, why are all of the discussions with Senator Lees and other senators from the Australian Democrats now shrouded in such secrecy? Mr Howard is notorious for shrouding his activities in secrecy, in failing to communicate to the public, but I would acknowledge in this chamber that Senator Lees is normally up-front, much more up-front than Mr Howard.The Senate still has not seen the additional material that the government has provided to Senator Lees in her `behind closed doors' discussions with government ministers. This is the material that she publicly chastised the government for withholding. Why is that material still unavailable to other senators in the chamber? Why is it unavailable to the Australian public? We have not had a decent explanation about this material and about what compromises are about to happen.It does appear that there is a rule about transparency for the Democrats and apparently there is another rule for the rest of us. Senator Lees is being, in my view, opaque—I will admit and acknowledge uncharacteristically opaque—and a step in the right direction for Senator Lees and the Australian Democrats would be to practice what they used to preach and release this new material to the opposition, release it to the Australian public. As far as the opposition are concerned, we are happy to give the Democrats a hand in analysing this material.But if they are Democrats they should act democratically. The Democrat leadership should be taking to their own party members any renovated tax package. They should take any deal back to the Democrat members. I say to the Democrat leader, Senator Lees, and her parliamentary team: act like Democrats. Practice what you preach. Do the right thing. If the deal that you are coming to behind closed doors with the government slides away outside the parameters that your own membership has set for you, have the courage to reballot them. If a hotch-potch deal is struck, if a GST is introduced, if the tax system goes truly ramshackle, if environmental standards slip, if the surplus is eaten away, then Australia will be the worse for it. So will the Democrats be the worse for it both as a political force and as a genuine political party with some sort of reputation for decency in Australian politics. The Democrats are lining up to be blamed for the Howard-Democrat GST. That is what Senator Lees is doing. She is lining up her own political party to be blamed, and the way it is going she and the Democrats will deserve all the blame they get. (Time expired)543413:12:005434Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—When I last rose to speak on matters of public interest it was the fifth speech I had given on the drug crisis at that stage and I said that it was going to be my final one. But since that time I have attended the drug summit in Sydney and feel that, as that was such a landmark discussion in the whole issue of handling the drug crisis, I should make some comments on the outcomes of that summit because what will now happen is that there will be certain moves in public policy resulting from the findings of that summit. The summit was opened by Premier Bob Carr. His opening statement was:Drug use is part of our society, part of our culture, part of the Australian way of life.They were poignant words and it was a sound way to start this summit because the Premier was heralding an event which we have never undertaken in this country before.What was significant about the event, apart from the fact that it went for five days, was that it had all the state MPs there but it also brought together in the chamber—and it was in the upper house chamber of New South Wales—a whole range of experts on this whole issue of drugs. We heard from people who were drug addicts. We heard from people who had children who were drug addicts. We heard from people who care for them. We heard from the police. We heard from community organisations who assist in this field. So what we had right at the start was a massive range of information, a range of facts, put before the summit. One of the problems, particularly when we get into this debate on whether our approach should be harm minimisation or whether it should be tough on drugs, is what the Sydney Morning Herald editorial characterised as `Drugs: a false dichotomy' and it talks about the false dichotomy between zero tolerance and harm minimisation.This was one of the great strengths of the summit: people had their particular views, but they sat and listened. How much they took in and how much they changed their views varied. Towards the end of the summit, a number of people—including the Premier, Bob Carr—indicated that they had changed their views on several matters, based on that evidence. Premier Carr highlighted a key point in his opening address, saying:I would not like the test of the effectiveness of this summit to be whether at the end of five days there is to be an endorsement of a heroin trial or safe injecting rooms.Given what happened five days later, which I will come back to a little later in the speech, it is interesting that he made those comments at the start of the summit. Even though it was a great exercise in bringing out information, I think the outcomes were quite mixed and in many ways disappointing.We have got to ask how effective the summit outcome was when one of its key recommendations was supervising legal, safe heroin injecting facilities, provided local governments agree after community consultation. It begs the question: if people are going to use safe injecting rooms, where are they getting the substance from to inject? Obviously, they are buying it off the street. A lot of them are affording to buy it through the proceeds of crime or prostitution. This terrible aspect of the problem—people turning themselves into criminals to support this habit, which impacts on society by increasing the rate of crime across the community—is not answered in any way by that recommendation. You have to ask yourself how effective it is as a strategy when many of the councils which have to bring in the ordinances to set up such an injecting room in a particular area express grave doubts. Many of them have already said that they just will not do it. How effective is it as a strategy when overseas experiences show that shooting galleries are not the real answer?6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Shooting galleries are not the same.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—How effective is the long-term goal of reducing drug dependency? Senator, that should be the key goal: we should be trying to reduce drug dependency. What that strategy does is maintain people in a very poisonous and destructive habit and, of course, it does terrible damage to their lives and the lives of people around them.I want to comment on some of the views put forward by some people attending the summit. Police Commissioner Peter Ryan did raise some very important perspectives. He recognised that what was needed was a collaborative whole of government approach, but he said that police need very clear, unambiguous laws and a clear sense of the powers they have in particular situations. He was indicating particularly in this area of enforcement of drug law that that did not exist at the moment. He also pointed out—I think this is relevant in light of that last point of setting up shooting galleries—that in the area where you set up these sorts of facilities, as has been the case with the current syringe program and the methadone program, you create what he called a honey pot effect. This is what is causing the councils enormous concern. In other words, if you have got people who use drugs attending at a particular geographic point, that then actually attracts drug dealers. Remember that under the proposal the people in these rooms are not going to be given heroin. They buy it on the streets, so the street sellers are attracted to that area. That attracts crime to the area. That then degrades the whole area and people start moving away, and you have a degradation of your urban environment. If people are going to have access to such facilities, where are they going to go? There was one set up at the Wayside Chapel. That is no longer running, but when it was set up, there it was for a city of four million people. Are they going to come in from Cabramatta or the North Shore or wherever to this one facility? Is it just going to be for heroin? In the case of some other illegal drugs, people sometimes take up to 16 hits a day. If they are doing that, they are going to do a lot of travel getting in and out of centres. Perhaps the only other answer is to set these up right across the whole city. Then you have the problems I indicated earlier with the honey pot effect, degrading the urban environment and creating centres of crime. What is happening in Cabramatta at the moment would be happening right across Sydney.Nowhere in the world has this been shown to be a successful strategy. The mayors have really come out very much against it, as outlined in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. I thought the most interesting comment was from the mayor of Fairfield, the council covering the Cabramatta area. He said that there was no room for approval of such a facility in Cabramatta by his council. The mayor of Lismore said that the Nimbin trouble spot would have strong opposition from the community. The mayor of Dubbo said there was a 100 to one shot that this would get up in his town. Even the mayor of Newcastle, who is in favour of drug trials, was quite cautious, saying that it would need very wide community consultation before they would dip their toe in the water.The reality of this program is that it would have to be set up in some geographic location, and everyone living in that location would take what is called the NIMBY approach—`not in my backyard'. Even if it did get through council it would have great difficulty getting established. So it was a major recommendation of the summit, but as I have pointed out, it has major implementation problems. It will not solve the drug crisis. It is really heading in the wrong direction.The right direction, which we should set our sights on very carefully, is rehabilitation. What families tell me is that they want their children off drugs. They don't want them maintained on drugs. This point was made very clearly by Major Brian Watters. One of the more saddening aspects of the summit was the way in which people who were still in their trenches, who opposed the approach of Brian Watters, attacked him in their questioning more so than anyone else that I saw. I thought the way they treated him was disgraceful. He pointed out that 98 per cent of Australians don't use heroin, so you cannot argue that programs that are in place are totally ineffective. That has been the background argument; a lot of people have said, `Well, nothing is working, let's try something new.' If 98 per cent of Australians are not on heroin, maybe something is working.The strongly emphasised thing to come out of the summit is that the whole problem is basically under-resourced. The police do not have enough resources to enforce control of crime in this area. In particular, the rehabilitation facilities do not have enough resources, and this is the most disgraceful aspect of the problem. In my own state of New South Wales, which has half of Australia's drug problem, there are just so few detox facilities, for example. In the Hunter Valley, which has half a million people, there is one 16-bed unit. In the Central Coast, which has a quarter of a million people, there is no unit at all.What came out of the summit was the need to have one of these units for about every 80,000 adults. That is equivalent to a federal seat, so that gives a rough calculation of how many units there should be. In my area—the Central Coast, the Hunter Valley—there should be seven units; there is one small unit. So the state government, which controls these things, has got a long way to go to put in better, more comprehensive treatment.Major Watters indicated how this treatment works. He said that every dollar you spend on it returns $7 in benefits to the community. Getting people off drugs means less crime, less insurance, less time in courts and in prison. One dollar to $7 is a pretty good investment in improving our society. Major Watters also emphasised the point that I made in one of my speeches here about what is happening in Sweden. He put forward some very impressive statistics from Sweden. The lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use in those aged 16 to 29 years is nine per cent in Sweden; it is 52 per cent in Australia. The estimated users per million of population is 500 in Sweden and between 5,000 and 16,000 in Australia. What is Sweden doing that we are not doing to bring about these outcomes? What did a country that had a major drug problem in the seventies do in the eighties and nineties to get that under control?Sweden brought in a combined package which increased the number of residential treatment centres, established outpatient units, updated public information campaigns, and deemed as unacceptable all non-medical use of drugs. So they combined a tough approach with a case management approach, putting resources in to treat people on drugs. That is the clear message from Sweden. It was a clear model that this country could have followed. Yet some of the things said at the summit and some of the recommendations made have us moving down a totally different path.It was a very interesting few days listening to the speakers at the summit. It was a great pity that I was not a delegate. I would have liked to have been a delegate, but one of the shortcomings of the summit was that it was held in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament, with very limited seating. It would have been much better if the organisers had chosen, for example, the Sydney Convention Centre, where not only a lot more people could have participated but also a lot more people could have observed. Not at the summit were people from the Hunter Valley whose children had been on drugs; these people had held seminars and public meetings on drugs, yet they could not even get a seat to observe the summit. That was a great pity. With that wider participation, the summit would have had a much better effect.I am very pleased that New South Wales undertook this summit. We will have to look at some of the recommendations in a very hard way. But by focusing the attention of all MPs on this problem for one week, I am quite confident that what will come out of it—particularly given the poor record of New South Wales—is much better resourcing of the drug crisis.543713:27:005437Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The last time I spoke in this chamber on the GST was last Friday week. I have asked a few questions in question time this week, but last Friday week was the day on which Senator Harradine made what is now commonly called his `I cannot' speech. That was a quite historic speech in this chamber, a speech in which he declared that, in all conscience as an Australian, he could not vote for the GST in the form in which it currently appears; nor could he vote for the GST in the form of the offer made to him by the Prime Minister in negotiations the previous day, and indeed that day, to try to encourage his vote.It is important to follow the theme of public opinion that has been expressed by various polls and by various columns of letters to the editor to see what the Australian public think of the GST. A lot of people are claiming to speak on behalf of the Australian public. I think it is important that we look at the polls to see what they say to the pollsters and to get a fair feeling of the pulse of this nation when it comes to this regressive tax.The Herald Sun newspaper, the weekend after Senator Harradine made his historic `I cannot' speech, took a poll to see whether Australians approved of his actions. The findings of that poll were that 70 per cent of Australians did approve. Going by that poll, they approved of them by virtue of Senator Harradine's declaration of conscience and the courage with which he had acted. Seventy per cent of Australians admired and respected his decision and held that it was right for him, a politician, to take a moral stand—and a courageous one—with respect to this tax.But that 70 per cent means that a lot of people who are supporters of the GST also approved of Senator Harradine's actions, given the moral stand that he had taken. That is an important demonstration of respect for integrity, honour and honesty in political discourse in this nation, an important acknowledgment of the fact that Australians will approve, even if they disagree, when they recognise someone taking a moral stand, a stand on principle.It is a matter of historical record that the Australian Labor Party has taken a stand against the GST, and has consistently done so. We looked at options for tax reform in 1985. In that context, we looked at a series of options. We took those options to a national summit of all interested organisations and, through a process of political debate, rejected the GST.We also took a stand in the 1993 election, when John Hewson was the then leader of the coalition and introduced his notorious Fightback package, which was a GST package. On principle and in conscience, we took a stand on our electoral life against the introduction of a GST and fought an election on that issue. It is a matter of historical record that we won that election because Australians at that time rejected the idea of a GST.The 1996 election, the one in which this government came to power, was an election in which you will recall this government had declared, through the Prime Minister, that it would `never ever'—and I quote those words—introduce a consumption tax into Australia. In 1996 that was not an electoral issue. But last year it was.At the election in 1998, the government sought a mandate for a GST. It put forward such a proposition almost immediately before declaring an election and before Australians had been able to study the fine print of what this new tax meant. It is only because of the Senate's inquiry into that GST package that we have now discovered a number of major flaws. The devil in the detail has become apparent. The hidden traps and the burrs in the saddle are now public knowledge. We now know this to be an unfair tax; we know it to be a tax that you cannot make right.I go back to the remarks made in this chamber last Friday week by Senator Harradine—which are, as I say, widely admired in Australia for their honesty and integrity—when he said:One of the fundamental principles—referring to the GST—is the capacity to pay. I think people all around this chamber will agree that the GST is inherently regressive. We all agree with that. The question is whether compensation is adequate. That is the question in my mind that is raised for the government.The question now in my mind is whether it is inherently regressive to such an extent that it should not be supported.I want to draw particular attention to the next set of remarks because they go to the core of the debate as it has now moved. The debate now focuses on whether food should come out of the package; and, if food comes out, will the package therefore be fair?The next remarks of Senator Harradine summarise a position that the Labor Party holds also—they are remarks which summarise the position to be taken by any fair-minded Australian who, after looking at the proposition of whether you can make an unfair regressive tax better, would say, `Of course you can't.' These are the remarks of Senator Harradine:The GST burdens the poor and those with the least capacity to pay. It discriminates against the poor and the pensioners who are living a hand-to-mouth existence and spending the bulk of their income on the necessities of life—food, clothing, rent, heating, power, bus fares and so on. Hard-pressed parents who are spending money on their families and raising children—the future taxpayers—are forced by this very tax into a means tested compensation package from the outlays side of the budget.But I want to emphasise in particular `the necessities of life'. What are they? Are they exclusively food? No, they are not. They are `food, clothing, rent, heating, power, bus fares and so on'. So to only address the taking out of food does not make that package fair. At the end of the day, it might be slightly less harsh, but it is still inequitable and it is still unfair. If one stands for the principle of fairness, then one stands against such a package.Going back to the polling—because it is quite instructive—this week, the Australian newspaper reported the news poll taken on the basis of the GST exempting food. The first part of this news poll, which I have before me and which is important to this debate, is to see where Australia is up to as far as the GST package itself is concerned. According to this news poll, in answer to the question, `Are you for or against a GST?', the total in favour of such a tax is 40 per cent; the total against such a tax is 51 per cent. Fifty-one per cent, when I last went to school, was a majority. In other words, a majority of Australians oppose this tax; to put it around the other way, the Prime Minister has the support of only 40 per cent of Australia when it comes to this tax.But when you look at those who are most opposed to this tax, people in households of less than $30,000 a year, only 29 per cent favour this tax. But in those households the strongest group is represented as being opposed; 46 per cent of those households are opposed to this tax. That is to say, people on low incomes know the truth; they know that this tax discriminates against them. There is the least support in that cohort against this tax, and the strongest opposition in that cohort for an opposition—a complete opposition—to the tax.Then we come to what perhaps is the question of the day: would you be in favour of a GST if food were excluded? Not surprisingly, the majority of Australians would be; if a GST were to exclude food, 52 per cent of Australians would be in favour. Of course, that is a gun-to-the-head question: `If you are to have a tax which is a GST, would it be better with food out?' In answer, most people said yes. It is a question of appeal to the obvious and not an issue in the face of which people say, `We want a GST with food out.'That is the critical point. In order to see that, you just go back to the first questions. To the question, `Are you for or against a GST?', 51 per cent of Australians said that they were against. Another question was: should the Senate pass this tax package? In answer, 51 per cent of Australians said that we should not, and 37 per cent of Australians said that we should. So where is the public opinion on this point? The public opinion is strongly against the government.But there is also an important historical reference on the food-out question. Those of you who remember the Fightback package will remember that initially Fightback included food. But you will remember that on the road to the election Mr Hewson, the then leader of the coalition, removed food from the package. I have before me news poll voting intentions for the period running up to the election on 13 March 1993, the GST election we had before the last one—the one where Fightback and John Hewson were campaigning for this inequitable, unfair tax around Australia.In December 1992, three months before the election was held, 47 per cent of Australians were going to vote for the Australian Labor Party and only 42 per cent for the Liberal-National Party, who were proposing this tax. When the food-out change was made—that is, when food was taken out by Mr Hewson—the figures reversed. In January 1993, the weekend of January 22-24, with an election looming on 13 March, 42 per cent of Australians were going to vote for the Labor Party, which was opposed to this tax; 47 per cent were going to vote for the coalition; six per cent for the Australian Democrats; and five per cent for others. So the Liberal Party took succour in the belief that they had now won the tax debate; they had swung the figures around 47 per cent in their favour.On election eve, coming forward to the weekend of 5-7 March 1993, the figures were still the same: for the Labor Party, 42 per cent; for the food-out option of the GST, 47 per cent; for the Democrats, six per cent; and for the others, five per cent. The Liberals thought that they would win. But what happened in that election, in the real poll, was that the Liberals lost and Labor increased its majority. Indeed, after the poll that was taken on 13 March, if you go to the weekend of 2-4 April, 48 per cent were voting Labor and 42 per cent were voting Liberal.The point about this is that it is a false dawn for anyone who believes that the food-out package is acceptable to Australia. John Hewson thought so. He lost an election believing that to be true. When people focused on the issue and asked, `Do we want a GST without food, or do we want a GST at all?', they said, `No, we don't want a GST.' They did not want a GST in 1993. If you read these polls now, they clearly say, `No, Australia does not want a GST now either, with food out; it is not an acceptable option. But, if we have the choice of a GST with food in or food out, we would prefer one with the food out.' That is the right way to read these polls.I have one final word. Anyone debating against me will say, `But they won the last election.' They did. Labor got 52 per cent of the vote, two-party preferred; and the Liberal-National Party got 48 per cent of the vote. Their vote was spread in the electorates, which meant that the coalition got elected to government. But, if that election had been a referendum on the GST, it would not have passed; it would have failed in a majority of states and it would not have been carried overall in this country.Senator Abetz interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—So let's not come back with the argument that the last election was a referendum because, if it was one on the GST, you have lost, and the mandate question is lost with you.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—No, you're wrong.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The government does not have a mandate in this matter. (Time expired)544013:42:005440Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Youth unemployment is one of the major issues facing our nation today. Sadly, young people are often unemployed because they lack confidence, planning and presentation skills. I am sure that all senators would agree that the future of young Australians is of paramount importance to all of us as Australians, and it is essential that positive programs which provide training opportunities, develop leadership and planning skills and encourage initiative be endorsed and supported.Today I would like to inform the Senate about an exciting program in Western Australia which meets these objectives. This scheme is Cadets WA and has been introduced into Western Australia by the Minister for Youth in the Western Australian state government, the Hon. Mike Board.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—A very good minister.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—A very good minister indeed, as Senator Abetz has said. The Cadets WA program provides structured training to encourage the development of practical life skills, team work and leadership qualities in young people. The vision for Cadets WA was conceptualised in 1996 by the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Richard Court, and Minister Mike Board became the driving force in establishing pilot cadet units in 11 schools throughout the state.The success of the program has been outstanding, with 139 units currently operating, the majority of which operate in schools. At present, approximately 5,000 young people are involved in the Cadets WA program.Why is this program so important? Because it will help reduce youth unemployment, which, according to April estimates, now stands at 26.1 per cent nationally and 20.7 per cent in the state of WA.The schools based Cadets WA program establishes an important link between training and employment which can only improve job prospects for young people when they leave school. Usually, when cadets are mentioned, one thinks of military cadets. But Cadets WA includes police rangers, emergency service cadet corps, bush rangers, St John Ambulance cadets, Red Cross cadets and the traditional navy and army cadets and air training corps.Unfortunately, all too frequently in our local communities and in the local media our young people are viewed in a negative light, with more emphasis on the few individuals who engage in anti-social behaviour than on those who contribute positively to the community. I am sure senators would agree that it is important that our perception of young people is moulded around the positive contribution that many of them make in the community, and with the right training both in schooling and character we have the opportunity to provide young people with a solid foundation for their futures.Cadets WA works to support community youth organisations in projecting a positive image of our youth through active participation in the program. By providing a skills based focus in the cadet organisations, participants can gain productive knowledge while also acquiring a sense of community responsibility and service. The Cadets WA program aims to provide a vocational link through which skills are recognised. Some schools have incorporated the program into their routine curriculum, while in others Cadets WA is an after school option.Cadets WA units are totally funded by government. A management committee oversees the administration and expenditure of the program and consists of a school principal, or their representative, parent representatives and representatives from the cadet unit. Host organisations provide sponsorship and play a large role in facilitating the training activities. The level of commitment required of cadets largely depends on the type of unit. However, in general terms, it usually involves a minimum of two years training, one weekend training activity per term and an annual camp to consolidate the skills developed.Decisions about which type of cadet training will be undertaken at the school are made by the school community after consultation with staff, students and parents. Teachers also have the opportunity to participate as instructors and unit administrators. Cadet units usually consist of 50 cadets with a minimum of three instructors or administrators. The various kinds of cadet units offer different kinds of training, but they all emphasise planning, team work, acquisition of skills and leadership. The most popular cadet program is the emergency services cadets. These cadets strive for a broader community focus by learning from the state emergency service agencies, such as the fire brigade and rescue service, the bushfire service and the WA state emergency services. These cadets learn about rescue techniques, fire safety and basic firefighting, radio communications, first aid, navigation, bush craft, counterdisaster training, and boat and water safety. Acquiring such operational knowledge is a perfect training ground for community service and provides crisis training in case of an emergency. Many of these units also receive support from the St John Ambulance, local RSL branches, WA police services and organisations like Rotary.Police rangers are sponsored by the police service through the Federation of Western Australian Police and Citizens Youth Clubs. As part of the Cadets WA program, the police rangers complement the WA police services schools-based policing program. Police rangers are usually aged between 11 and 18 and participate in a training program which includes survival techniques, navigation, bush craft, abseiling and climbing, all of which provide adventure and skills development to the young people involved.Bush ranger cadets are a recent addition to the program and offer a unique opportunity for environmentally minded young people to learn about conservation and management of our natural environment. Working closely with the Department of Conservation and Land Management, which sponsors the bush rangers cadet units, bush rangers are taught the meaning of conservation, landscape and environmental management, park and reserve management, bush craft and survival skills and working safely in the natural environment. This program provides a unique opportunity to gain an understanding of the environment and the way in which individuals can contribute to its management and conservation.The St John Ambulance cadets provide young people with an opportunity to learn about the value of good health, accident prevention, illness, first aid and family care. Cadets are able to work towards the completion of a certificate, thus providing lifelong skills in first aid and an understanding of health issues. Red Cross cadets, which are the newest type of cadet unit in the Cadets WA program, cover similar areas. Cadets in the Red Cross unit are encouraged to develop a concern and appreciation for the wellbeing of others through tolerance and acceptance, by assisting children, older persons, families and people with disabilities.Then there are the three different kinds of military cadet units. The navel cadets encourage the development of seamanship training skills, which ensures an active interest in the RAN. The cadets participate in activities such as marine engineering, communications, catering, physical training and adventure training which can only promote confidence and active team work. The Army cadets are a voluntary youth organisation sponsored by the Australian Army and are open to young people between 13 and 19 years of age. These cadets are encouraged to gain an awareness and appreciation of Army knowledge and discipline. The Air Training Corps is a voluntary national community based youth organisation which is sponsored by the RAAF. Training activities include fieldcraft, survival, flying both powered aircraft and gliders, drill and ceremonial activities, aircraft recognition, instructional techniques and service knowledge.The great merit of the Cadets WA program is that it primarily promotes a positive image of youth through active participation and consultation with schools, parents, local agencies and, most importantly, other young people. All of this means that the 5,000 young people involved in Cadets WA programs develop a positive outlook about life and are far less likely to fall into the deadening trap of unemployment because they have learned to use their initiative in solving problems and finding a positive pathway through life.I would like in the Senate today to commend the WA Minister for Youth, the Hon. Mike Board, on the success of his initiative and for his enthusiasm in promoting the Cadets WA program. I feel confident that many young Western Australians will reap enormous rewards from the training they have received from the Cadets WA program during their secondary education. Already, in every state and territory of the Commonwealth, there is a model and infrastructure for similar programs to the Cadets WA program. In the light of the success of the Cadets WA program, it would be a great thing to expand on that program and see it introduced into other states to work towards a national cadet program for the youth of Australia.544213:54:005442Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I would like to endorse the comments that Senator Eggleston has just made in support of the cadet movement in Western Australia and the fantastic support role that the Hon. Mike Board has given to the cadet movement within Western Australia. The cadet movement is something from which the youth of this country have a lot to gain. The federal government went to the last election on a policy of giving an extra $3 million for cadets in schools. Unfortunately, only the Western Australian, Victorian and Queensland governments have taken us up on that offer.The cadet movement has been adequately explained by Senator Eggleston, so I will not comment any further on that. Suffice it to say that in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence I have responsibility for the cadet movement. As I travel around Australia, I am continually impressed by the fantastic contribution of the parent support groups, the volunteers and the cadets themselves. If ever a young person was deciding whether or not to get involved in the cadet movement, allow me to advise them of some anecdotal evidence that I received from a relatively small country town the other week.The anecdotal evidence is this: youth unemployment in that township is around 80 per cent. Those youths which have involved themselves in the cadet movement nearly always obtain employment. The reason? Because they have learnt certain life skills, they have learnt how to operate as a team, cooperate with others for a common good, and they have certain discipline instilled within them which makes them ideal employees. The comments which Senator Eggleston has made in the chamber today are comments which I wholeheartedly endorse. Sitting suspended from 1.57 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice544354435443Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In light of the current reports that the government is planning to raid the surplus to buy off the Democrats on a GST deal, will the minister guarantee on behalf of the Prime Minister that the budget surplus will not be further eroded to pay for a deal on the GST with the Democrats, including the removal of food?5443Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It really is extraordinary. What was the attitude of the Labor Party when our government took the hard decisions to rein in public expenditure, which ultimately created the surplus that Senator Faulkner is now wanting to preserve? The Labor Party opposed us at every step. The Labor Party said it was not necessary—because the Labor Party stand for high taxes and high borrowings. We saw it after the 1993 election when they promised at the election that taxes would come down, and yet in their first budget they put taxes up, particularly indirect taxes. We saw it with borrowings year after year.I remind Senator Faulkner that the Labor Party created $80 billion of debt in their last five years of government. That was the Labor Party's record—high deficits. They did not worry about deficits. When we used to come in here and say, `Deficits are bad policy because they end up in interest rates being forced up and small businesses suffering,' they said to us, `We don't know what you're talking about. Deficits can be good policy.' I can remember Mr Keating as Prime Minister year after year arguing for high deficits.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. As you would be aware, I asked Senator Hill a question as to whether he would give a guarantee on behalf of the Prime Minister that the budget surplus would not be further eroded in the development of a deal on the GST with the Australian Democrats. We have had a lengthy introduction, irrelevant to the question, from Senator Hill. Could you now direct the minister to answer the question and to indicate to the Senate whether he is willing to give such a guarantee?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure Senator Hill is aware of the question, and I am sure he is leading to it.BH4Senator HILL—I would be much happier to give that guarantee if the Labor Party had done one thing to assist us in the creation of the surplus, which now Senator Faulkner says is so precious. But instead they blocked us at every stage and day after day came in here and argued against the economic policies that have resulted in the surplus. I have said time and time again that we are pleased that we took those hard but fair decisions that have resulted in that surplus because we are now able to give it back to the Australian people in benefits: the lowest interest rates in 30 years, the lowest rates of inflation in 30 years—real benefits for Australians.We are not going to throw away this surplus. We think it is critical to long-term sound economic policies that can provide for future generations of Australians the prosperity and jobs that we would like to provide. We have put in place sound economic policies that have been recognised around the world. They have been recognised as world's best practice. They have helped us achieve high levels of growth at a time when our markets have been in deep despair in terms of their economic capabilities. So we are not going to throw away those surpluses; they are going to help sustain our economic strength.But we are also interested in tax reform that gives us the opportunity to build upon our economic gains. We have to do more—there are still unemployed in Australia. We want to build upon our economic achievements so far and to provide future jobs. Senator Faulkner can be assured that we have taken good, sound economic decisions, we have delivered the benefits to the Australian people and we are not going to throw that away. But we are committed to a tax reform that will further encourage economic growth and that will encourage Australians to take risks and to go out there and build their businesses and employ Australians who are still out of work. Senator Faulkner need not worry; we will not sacrifice sound economic policy, because we actually believe in it.5444Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister now give a clear and categorical commitment to the parliament that the surplus will not be raided to pay for a food-free GST? Will you give that commitment—that guarantee—now, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to the parliament and to the Australian people?5444Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I said, the Labor Party is extraordinary. All of a sudden it is interested in surpluses and says they should be preserved, after building $80 billion of debt in its last five years of government. All of a sudden, it is interested in food remaining in the GST. It can vote for a GST with food, but it will not vote for a GST with food.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Could you direct the Leader of the Government in the Senate to answer the clear question that I directed to him in relation to giving that guarantee on behalf of the Prime Minister? He has an opportunity to answer it in the 30 seconds that remain to him. Would you direct him to do so?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I cannot direct him how to answer this question. I am sure the minister is aware of the question that has been asked, and he is dealing with it as he believes is relevant.BH4Senator HILL—I think the Labor Party have a nerve, being the policy free zone that they are, to ask a question of this type. Yes, I will guarantee that we will not sacrifice sound economic policy, because we support it. We have the runs on the board, and we want to build upon those achievements because we want the economy to grow and we want to create more jobs for Australians.54445444Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Ellison. Minister, given the present level of concern in the community about illicit drug misuse by younger Australians, will you inform the Senate of any initiatives the government has taken recently in relation to drug education? Will you also advise the Senate as to any strategy undertaken by the government in this regard, particularly with reference to cooperation with the state and territory governments?5444Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Yesterday was an important day for drug education in this country because we saw the launch by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Trish Worth, of the government's National School Drug Education strategy. This is the first time that we have a nationally funded and coordinated strategy dealing with this very important question of school drug education. This is a strategy which has as its basic goal no illicit drugs in schools. It is a strategy which says that illicit drugs have no place whatsoever in schools and it forms a part of this government's Tough on Drugs strategy. That was mentioned yesterday by my colleague Senator Vanstone when she referred to the three arms of this strategy: firstly, law enforcement; secondly, the health area of harm minimisation; and, thirdly, the important area of education.But what we have here is a national strategy which came about as a result of the hard work by the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education, which was set up by this government to look at this important question. I think it is important to look at the goal stated by this strategy, which is:The National School Drug Education Strategy strengthens the provision of educational programs and supportive environments which contribute to the goal of `no illicit drugs in schools'. This goal is based on the belief that illicit and other unsanctioned drug use in schools is unacceptable. The focus will be on educational outcomes. Assisting students with drug related problems and deterring the presence and use of unsanctioned drugs in schools will also be addressed.Part of Senator Brownhill's question dealt with our cooperation with state and territory governments. That is of course a very import ant aspect because the delivery of this strategy is primarily in the hands of state and territory governments. It was through the ministerial council of education ministers that we developed cooperation on this very important subject, and I am pleased to say that we have had cooperation from all governments in this respect. In fact, the ministerial council of education ministers has now set up a task force to see this matter through.This government remains firmly committed to the problem of drugs and how they affect our young people. At the outset, we committed $7½ million to the development of this strategy and the implementation of it. In accordance with our electoral promises, we have committed a further $10.5 million in our budget this year to the further implementation of this drug strategy. This of course cannot be dealt with by governments alone; we need the help of parents and communities, and this is part of the drug strategy that we have developed. The Advisory Committee on School Drug Education which I have mentioned has done an excellent job in bringing about this strategy. But its work is not yet finished; it has to help the government implement this. Over the forthcoming years it will look at programs which are effective and will offer international best practice to our schools and, particularly, teachers. This strategy focuses on the professional development of teachers in dealing with this. This is a very important strategy which is a step forward in the fight against drugs.5445Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you very much, Minister. I recently attended a country cities against drugs meeting in Tamworth, and that made all the points that you have just made. Minister, how long will the government's program take?5445Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This government has committed $500 million over the next four years to its Tough on Drugs program, and the funding I referred to earlier in relation to this strategy covers the next four years. But this problem is not going to be solved overnight; it will require a generational change in relation to drugs.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—It won't be solved by you.9X5Senator ELLISON—I hear the interjection by Senator Bolkus and I invite him to join the government in its fight against drugs, because it will need the efforts of this government and of future Australian governments to fight this crisis in Australian society.Opposition senators interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—The bickering and the interjections of the opposition will not help. Why don't they join with us in fighting this big problem?54455445Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. It is an important question about the government backsliding on tax avoidance. Can the minister confirm that the government remains committed to reforming the taxation treatment of family trusts as outlined in its ANTS package, notwithstanding the reported comment by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, `We'll kill this in cabinet'?5445Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We went to the election, as you will be quite aware, Senator Cook, outlining a comprehensive tax strategy. One aspect, of course, was the current bills before the parliament and the other one was the reform of business taxes. Those issues on trusts are now before the Ralph committee. The government is waiting for the recommendations of the Ralph committee and will respond to those recommendations in due course. Let me say that we are very committed to tax reform: we are committed to the reform of the income tax system, the indirect tax system and the business tax system, Senator. Let me give you that absolute assurance.5445Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Well, I heard the answer, but was it yes or was it no, Minister? Can you assure the Senate that at least you and the Treasurer will stand firm on the issue of family trusts in the face of mounting National Party pressure?5445Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, let me give you an absolute assurance: I am in favour of tax reform. I am in favour of the commitments that we made in the course of the election.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Which ones are they?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections.WW4Senator KEMP—In relation to trusts and a wide range of other issues that have gone to the Ralph committee, the government will be making its decision on the basis of the recommendations that come forward from Mr Ralph's committee.54465446Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. The fight against crime is an important issue for the security of all Australians. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government's budget initiatives for the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service and the National Crime Authority?5446Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Coonan for her question.Senator Bolkus interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—It is no wonder that Senator Bolkus does not want to listen, having presided over many years of Labor inefficiency in this area.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, you will cease interjecting. You are in breach of the standing orders. There is an appropriate time for you to raise issues.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus would recognise, privately of course, that this is an excellent and far-sighted budget for Australia's premier law enforcement agencies—the Australian Federal Police, Customs, the National Crime Authority and AUSTRAC. The budget implements the government's promises in full. It delivers the resources that law enforcement agencies need to carry out their work.Let me focus on just a few highlights in this budget for law enforcement agencies. Perhaps one of the most important is up to $50 million over three years to establish a national crime information system called Crimtrack. Crimtrack will give local police the tools they need to fight crime locally. It will provide access to the most up-to-date and efficient technology to store and retrieve information to help police. It will build a national DNA criminal intelligence database and a national child sex offender database. After that, there will be $41.6 million for the Tough on Drugs strategy to expand Australia's capacity to intercept drugs before they reach Australia's shores and to attack the distribution networks in Australia. Those funds will go to the Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and AUSTRAC.There will be an amount of $35.4 million over four years for the Australian Customs Service to significantly increase its ability to detect illegal drugs. That will include new large-scale X-ray technology and funding to support specialist ship and aircraft search teams. After that, there will be $24.2 million over four years for an additional four mobile strike teams for the Australian Federal Police under the Tough on Drugs strategy. That will bring the total number of those teams to 10. Under the Labor Party, the Australian Federal Police had the capacity to mount only one—a singular one, Senator Bolkus—proactive drug importation investigation at any one time. There will be $6.5 million for Customs activities associated with the Olympics.Those initiatives together mean that over the next four years there will be a new $157.7 million available for law enforcement in Australia. Of course, you do not only need to fight crime when it has happened; this government is far-sighted enough to see that we need to put significant resources into crime prevention. So in addition to re-funding the national campaign against violence and crime, we have added $8 million or so for crime prevention programs targeted quite specifically to families and family breakdown.The Labor Party ran a record of budget deficits. It had no meaningful commitment at all to our premier law enforcement agencies. Mr Beazley finally agreed on 2GB recently that money had been restored to law enforcement. He admitted that it had been increased in February and at that time was greater than it had been before—this was before the budget—but went on to say that it was never terribly adequate anyway. That is what Mr Beazley said about the law enforcement funding of the Labor Party in their 13 years in government: it was never terribly adequate anyway. We have not only restored funding; we have also increased it dramatically in this budget. Senator Faulkner and others might like to bear in mind that that is what you can afford to do when you run the economy properly.54475447Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. I ask: on this National Sorry Day, can the minister inform the Senate whether the government is still refusing to offer an apology to the stolen generations and whether this refusal is based on the need to avoid Commonwealth legal liability for the removal of children and their families? Isn't this prime ministerial excuse directly contradicted by the government's own budget papers, at page 4-31, where the government sets out the risks to the Commonwealth's fiscal position from the 2,200 claimants, which are in the realm of some `hundreds of millions of dollars'? Isn't it the case that the government continues to ignore the precedent set by state and territory governments purely because the Prime Minister is too stubborn and too narrow-minded to undertake a real act of reconciliation?5447Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question. I should inform the Senate that Senator Bolkus and I were on the stage today singing a duet.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were late.VW4Senator HERRON—That is true. I acknowledge Senator Faulkner's comment that I was late. I was late because I was meeting with the Commonwealth Grants Commission. We were discussing the very real problems of disadvantage in the Aboriginal community. It was a very constructive meeting. We were addressing the problems that the Labor Party left us as a legacy after 13 years of administering this portfolio.The Prime Minister and I have personally expressed our sorrow for the events that have occurred in the past. But no country must be held hostage to its past, as Senator Bolkus would appear to suggest. No country can be held hostage to its past. We have to get on with redressing the problems of the present and planning the future. Senator Bolkus brought up the question of compensation and tried to link it to that.Under the Keating government, common law cases for compensation were started before the Bringing them home report was brought in. They were under way when you were in government, Senator Bolkus. What did the Keating government do? They responded as the government of the day, as we are today, in relation to compensation. So it is a spurious argument to bring up. The facts are that the compensation cases started under the Keating government when that government defended the original separated children litigation in the case of Kruger and Bray. That is fact. The writs for the Cubillo and Gunner cases were filed in October 1996—six months before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report was published and called for a national apology. To now start trying to distort the past to suit the political expediency of the present opposition is not correct. I think those remarks should be put on the board.We are addressing the problems of the past in a very constructive way, in relation to health, housing, education and employment. Madam President, you would be aware that only in the last day Minister Reith and Minister Abbott announced an employment program specifically for indigenous people of this country, to redress those problems that have resulted.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. Senator Herron is being asked about an apology—an apology which the Prime Minister will not give, but an apology which other state and territory leaders will give. I have asked the minister why the government and the Prime Minister will not tender an apology. I have not asked him anything about all these other matters he is talking about. On a point of relevance, he should answer the question that has been put to him, not be allowed to ramble about other aspects of Aboriginal affairs.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—On the point of order, Senator Herron.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Bolkus did not listen to what I said. I addressed the question that he asked. He as usual adopts his continuous attitude of sledging across the chamber without putting his brain and his hearing apparatus in order so that he can hear what was said.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I think the minister is aware of the question. I think the minister was initially distracted by interjections, which would be best ignored.VW4Senator HERRON—We are addressing the present and planning the future, and we are doing that constructively. In the last budget we brought down a $2.2 billion indigenous specific budget which is the greatest ever in the history of this country. We have responded to the Bringing them home report in a $63 million package that is constructively addressing the report that was presented by the inquiry. We are looking into the Link Up programs. We have set all those things in order and we are bringing out and addressing the disadvantage that obviously exists in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community of this country. We will not get anywhere if we do not address those things. As I said previously, we have a legacy of 13 years of Labor: when they had the opportunity to do all those things and did nothing.5448Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—As a supplementary question, I place on record that, though we were on the same stage, Senator Herron had neither a voice nor money to help the people this morning in the Great Hall. I ask the minister: if the government had had the good sense and the common decency to issue an apology in response to the stolen generations report, couldn't we have avoided the situation we find ourselves in—that is, mired in a test case in Darwin that has already cost $6 million, under daily instruction from your and the Prime Minister's offices, and preparing to fight some 2,000 further cases at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer? Wouldn't an apology at least mitigate some of those costs?5448Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, again he did not listen to what I had said previously. The apology appeared in the response of the Bringing them home report. The compensation cases were started prior to that. There was no question then about apologies. The government has stated its position in relation to that.54485448Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the minister's answer to my question yesterday that disability discrimination was a matter for the Attorney-General. How can the minister say that when the interests of people with disabilities are her concern? Again I remind the minister of the National Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which states:The consumer has the right to information on and access to mechanisms of complaint and redress and to appeal decisions made regarding their treatment and care.Can I at least ask the minister to indicate if she supports that statement. Furthermore, can the minister tell the Senate whether she was even consulted in the drafting of the regulations that now prevent some disabled people from making a complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act?5448Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think Senator Allison is still labouring under a misapprehension. I am the minister responsible for provision of employment services to people with disabilities and also for the provision of income support for people with disabilities. The responsibility for the legal protection of people with disabilities is in the Attorney-General's portfolio, as I said to her yesterday. Of course I am concerned about it, Senator, but you asked me a question which was appropriately addressed to the Attorney-General's portfolio, and Senator Vanstone was here ready, willing and eager to answer your question. I work with people from disability organisations and the care organisations constantly and of course I am concerned that they be properly protected under the law. But my responsibilities are in the provision of the appropriate disability employment services and their income support.5449Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask a supplementary question. The minister says that she is responsible for seeing that people with disabilities are properly protected under the law. I thought that was my question. I ask her again whether she supports the statement that I have just mentioned and whether she can give us some assurances that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the minister herself and people with disabilities will be consulted in the drafting of any future regulations which exempt the operation of the DDA?5449Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Senator Allison still does not understand that I am not the minister responsible for that. If Senator Vanstone gives me the answer that you should have asked for from her I will be happy to give you what Senator Vanstone would have told you, if that is of help. You continue to ask the wrong minister. If I run out of time I will be happy to table it for you, Senator, and you can get the rest of it at the end of question time.Senator Vanstone says in her brief that she is aware of the concerns in the community about the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), which were recently tabled in both houses, and she would have liked to have pointed out to you—and I will do it on her behalf—that the exemption of laws from the operation of the DDA is specifically provided for by sections 47 and 132 of the DDA and that section 47(2) provides an exemption from the operation of the DDA. I am sorry. I will happily give it to you afterwards, Senator. (Time expired)54495449Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister confirm that, during the important follow-up stage of the stolen generations inquiry, the then President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission sought meetings with all responsible ministers and chief executives of every relevant state and federal department and agency? Can the minister also confirm that Sir Ronald Wilson met with three state ministers and officers from all state departments, ATSIC and the federal health department? Why then does the Social Justice Commissioner's 1998 report state, on page 99, that no meetings were held with officers from the minister's office or from the Office of Indigenous Affairs in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the agency responsible for the government's response to the report—and did the minister refuse to hold such follow-up meetings on the stolen generations report? Didn't he in fact snub Sir Ronald Wilson and, if so, why?5449Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I cannot answer for the states or other departments, but I certainly met with Sir Ronald Wilson. I will have to get the dates for Senator Crossin. I certainly never snubbed him at any stage. If he considered that he was, I am sorry for that. I will check the dates and get back to Senator Crossin. I am not aware of any of the previous material that she spoke about. From memory, we certainly discussed the implementation of the report or where it should go. I am happy to get back to Senator Crossin with the dates and times, but I was unaware until now of the allegation that she has just made.5449Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate whether any significant part of the trumpeted $63 million response to the stolen generations report has flowed through to real services for the Aboriginal people whose families were torn apart? Is it not the case that the minister has used a sham review by KPMG to stall paying any money for services, and are stalling tactics still being shamefully used by this mean-spirited government? Furthermore, don't these bureaucratic delaying tactics by the minister, along with his blanket refusal to constructively engage in the follow-up to the stolen generations report, just highlight the Howard government's complete lack of commitment to moving the reconciliation process forward?5450Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I completely refute the last statement. We have made a major commitment to reconciliation and have in fact allocated the funding. There has been a delay. The implementation of the report was handed over to ATSIC and there was a delay because they were concerned about the outcome of the procedure that was done. They asked KPMG to investigate that. The government provided to ATSIC $11.25 million over four years to establish a dedicated indigenous family tracing and reunion link-up service in each state and the Northern Territory. As a first step, ATSIC was required to commission an independent evaluation of the existing services. So there is reason for the delay. It was never the intent of the government that it should be so. ATSIC was the correct body to do that, as they had experience in the field and there were various link-up services around the various states. So I refute the implication that it was by government intent at all; it was ATSIC's responsibility. (Time expired)54505450Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question, following up on that issue, is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Could the minister provide to the Senate information on precisely how much the government has allocated in total to its response to the stolen generations report and could the minister detail the allocations—the specific areas—to the Senate? If that cannot be done immediately, I would be obliged to have that tabled in the Senate as soon as possible.5450Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Harradine for the question because I am happy to do that and I can do it now. As I mentioned previously, $11.25 million over four years was to establish a dedicated indigenous family tracing and reunion or link-up service in each state and the Northern Territory. As I also previously mentioned, ATSIC was required to commission an independent evaluation of the existing services to identify the most appropriate models, including the resources required in each jurisdiction for new and enhanced services. That evalu ation was completed in April this year and, in the interim, existing services have been funded at historic levels.Contemporaneously with the evaluation, ATSIC has progressed the government's decision through funding established link-up services in New South Wales, Senator Harradine's own state of Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland to employ additional case workers. There has been provision of specialist family tracing training and purchase of capital items such as computer hardware and software, which will enhance the link-up services family tracing efforts. Submissions from organisations wishing to establish dedicated link-up services in Western Australia and South Australia and to enhance the service in Northern Territory are being developed.A total sum of $63 million is being devoted to the program and the negotiations are continuing with those other states and territories on matters such as state responses to the Bringing them home report because a lot of the implementation is a state responsibility and a church responsibility too. ATSIC is carrying through the development of that and I would be happy to produce a detailed outline of that for Senator Harradine. I do not think I have it with me at the moment, but I am happy to produce that detailed outline for the Senate as well.5450Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Much of what you have said, Minister, is already on the record, but what I am interested in specifically is the particular allocations that are now to be made, in the minds of the government, following the ATSIC review and following April. Perhaps you have indicated to me by your response that you will be providing the Senate with that ongoing information and I am sure the Senate will be most obliged if you could do that as and when the decisions are made.5450Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to do that. As I said, I thought I had it with me, but I will provide it at the end of question time to the Senate and to Senator Harradine.54515451Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Does the minister share the Governor-General's concern when he said, `It is sometimes difficult not to feel discouraged, even depressed, about the slow course of the reconciliation process,' and, `Progress is much slower than I, at least, had hoped for'? Is the minister aware that the former ATSIC Chair, Dr O'Donoghue, has stated that the reconciliation process has stalled? Why is it that the government, despite the Prime Minister's election night commitment, has proven incapable of taking the reconciliation process forward?5451Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Reynolds for the question because it comes to the nub of reconciliation. Government can play a part, but in reality it has to be a people's movement. It has to be in the hearts and minds of each one of us as individuals. The government cannot legislate for reconciliation.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Why don't you join the rest of them—church leaders, business leaders?VW4Senator HERRON—That is typical of Senator Bolkus's attitude—precluding reconciliation day and a very sensible question from Senator Reynolds, we get the gibberish that comes from Senator Bolkus on the other side. The attack on this does not do the subject justice. I am sure many of us share the concern of the Governor-General in relation to the slow progress, because there is a very genuine goodwill among Australians to achieve reconciliation.Madam President, you will recall that the Prime Minister restated the government's commitment to reconciliation during last year's election campaign and on election night in his victory speech. But, realistically, reconciliation must grow from the ground up. It must come from the people of the communities, and I urge everyone to get involved. Australia is a decent and harmonious nation with a society fundamentally based on fairness, appreciation of racial and cultural diversity, tolerance and mutual respect. They are the values necessary to achieve reconciliation, and this government is committed to upholding those values.Our significant and practical way to assist reconciliation is to address the disadvantage faced by many indigenous Australians which is a legacy of our past 210 years. That is why it is vital we overcome the disadvantage faced by many indigenous people and provide equal opportunities. The government's comprehensive $2.2 billion in indigenous specific funding in the budget initiatives will contribute to creating a better future for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders by focusing on the key areas of health, education, housing, employment and economic development.I noted in today's press that there was a significant comment from the Leader of the Opposition, in a constructive manner—unlike Senator Bolkus's interjections. There were significant statements also made by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and Dr O'Donoghue at the function this morning for the Journey of Healing program. It behoves all of us, including Senator Bolkus, to get aboard and to stop this being a political football. It does no justice to any of us that this should be a political football. We must work constructively together so that we can achieve an outcome which, as Senator Reynolds also appreciates, will not occur overnight. It is not something that you can put a finite time on. As I say, I share with the Governor-General the fact that there is such a delay, and it will be delayed by the political football attitudes of some of your colleagues, Senator Reynolds, because if it becomes a political football then there will not be genuine reconciliation in our community.5451Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I acknowledge that it is a people's movement, but we do need leadership. We need leadership from the Prime Minister. Senator Herron has said that we should get aboard—and that Nick Bolkus should get aboard—but what about the Prime Minister getting aboard? Will the Prime Minister take the advice and the counsel of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who said, `Unless non-Aboriginal Australians'—like the Prime Minister—`are prepared to look at the past openly and honestly, there will be no real and effective reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians'? Will the minister see that the Prime Minister talks to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to get a better understanding of his role in reconciliation and to take a lead from the former Prime Minister?5452Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Prime Minister has a very full understanding of the past and acknowledges the disadvantage that has affected us all. He has taken a lead in his victory speech and has talked about reconciliation. He has taken a very positive attitude. Madam President, how does Senator Reynolds understand the truth of what I am saying when at the same time I have talked about the $2.2 billion that has been provided in this budget and the concentration on overcoming the disadvantage of the past? We must acknowledge the problems of the past, but we must not be held custodians to the past.54525452Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, Australians have been great innovators in the development of renewable energy sources, including solar hot water and photovoltaic cells. Minister, what is the government doing to stimulate the development of the renewable energy industry in Australia?5452Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Watson for his question. I had great pleasure yesterday in launching the Sustainable Energy Industry Association of Australia—the new peak industry body representing the industry in Australia. This was a very significant milestone for the development of the Australian sustainable energy industry. As a sign of the government's commitment to this very important industry, I was able to announce that the government will provide $100,000 to the Sustainable Energy Industry Association over the next two years to support a range of industry development activities. Of course, this comes on top of a number of measures the government has put in place to support the growth of a very important new Australian industry. The government's greenhouse policy—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much noise in the chamber.JX4Senator MINCHIN—The government's very comprehensive and outstanding greenhouse policy includes a commitment of $60 million to a package of support measures for the uptake and commercialisation of renewable energy. The government's policy also includes a mandatory two per cent increase in the uptake of renewable and specified waste product energy by 2010.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many Labor senators making a noise.JX4Senator MINCHIN—That two per cent measure alone is expected to require the investment of between $2 billion and $4 billion in renewable energy electricity generating capacity over the next decade. That two per cent is the equivalent of two Snowy Mountains hydro-electric schemes, or the replication of Tasmania's entire power generating capacity. Something that my colleagues are interested in and the Labor Party is not interested in is that most of this investment is going to take place in regional Australia. These measures will provide significant opportunities for the use of biomass, solar, wind and other emerging technologies, and the development of significant research and development in these areas.This industry already employs some 6,000 people—Opposition senators interjecting—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, on a point of order: it is impossible to hear with the catcalling that is going on across the chamber. You have called them to order a number of times and they have refused to obey you. I think you should call them to order again.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators are aware of the standing orders.JX4Senator MINCHIN—I was trying to impress upon our opponents opposite that this industry already employs 6,000 people and exports some $100 million of products and services. The government's initiatives in stimulating new investment and new jobs in this area should amount, over the next few years, to the investment of some $70 million in significant regional projects, including the solar thermal power station near Lake Macquarie, the solar thermal power plant in Rockhampton, the waste energy plant in Wollongong and wind turbines at Denham, near Shark Bay in Western Australia. The government is going to work with this industry over the coming months on an emerging and renewable energy action agenda to prepare an industry development strategy.This government is interested in the development of new industries for Australia and we wish the ALP would support us in this development. These programs represent the greatest commitment by any Australian government to the development of a renewable energy industry for Australia. They will increase the share of renewables in our energy mix and encourage a strong renewable energy industry with great export potential.54535453Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the minister aware of comments by a senior Japanese diplomat that Japan's ongoing support for Dr Supachai, the Thai candidate for the WTO director-generalship, is because he has `a more receptive attitude to the Japanese view that agriculture is a pillar of rural life'? Is he aware that the Japanese government's continued opposition to the New Zealand candidate, Mr Mike Moore, is because `politically speaking, it is not very easy to accept someone from a country which is a free trader in agriculture'. Notwithstanding the initial reasons for supporting Dr Supachai in the contest, has the government now considered supporting the recommendation of the World Trade Organisation chairman to appoint Mike Moore, especially given that the diplomatic resistance to his appointment is largely due to his support for ongoing trade liberalisation in agriculture—a position he shares with the Australian government?5453Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The last public comment I heard from Mr Fischer on the matter was that we were looking for early resolution of what is seriously dividing the WTO. I do not think the support we have indicated in the past is a secret. It has obviously been well founded. If the implication of the question was that in some way we were looking for leadership of the WTO that might not be consistent with our views on free trade in agriculture, then I would be surprised because I have never seen Mr Fischer approach his job in that way. What we want is sound leadership of a body that is very important to us. We want an ongoing reform process—and that is what Mr Fischer is away seeking to facilitate at the moment—and we want the divisions over the leadership settled as quickly as possible.5453Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. What I was seeking was whether the government has an explanation why, given that a number of other countries have changed their positions recently, we are still seen in a position of not supporting the person who most favours trade liberalisation in agriculture and why, in fact, the candidate we are supporting is being supported by those countries which most oppose it.5453Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I understood that, but what I am saying is that the tenor of the question is somewhat inconsistent with the well-established record of Mr Fischer. We would obviously not be supporting someone who we believed would not advance the interests of free trade in agriculture. To suggest otherwise is foolish. If that means that the Japanese have a different interpretation of a particular gentleman's qualities, then so be it. As Mr Fischer has said recently, we want the matter resolved quickly and we would like it resolved amicably. The divisions that are building are not constructive or helpful. Mr Fischer is doing his best to help bring the matter to a conclusion.54535453Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I understand that the minister has announced a review of the adequacy of the protection that is afforded different habitat types in the Great Barrier Reef. I also recall that in January this year the minister asked the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for urgent advice on what action is necessary in the short term to ensure that trawling is conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner consistent with the conservation of the reef's world heritage values. I ask the minister: has he received this advice and, if so, will he be releasing it and, also, how will the advice inform the review of the level of protection given to the reef's diverse wildlife and habitats?5454Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, it is no secret that we have been concerned about trawling issues on the Great Barrier Reef, particularly since the advice of the CSIRO that came down a few months ago that I certainly interpreted as a warning. We support fishing on the reef, provided it is conducted in a sustainable way. The CSIRO warning was that further steps needed to be taken to ensure that it is sustainable and that we should address not only the issue of sustainability of the fish stocks but also the issue of the whole ecosystem—which is a somewhat new concept in relation to fishing plans but is nevertheless obviously very sound.The next step, having been warned by the CSIRO, is the trawl management plan due to be concluded in July of this year. Through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, we have been giving advice to the Queensland authorities responsible for the trawl plan as to what we expect will be within that plan, covering things such as turtle exclusion devices, the level of effort and matters that do relate to the protection of the whole ecosystem. We have a date in June by which we expect the draft will be provided, and we will respond further at that time.We are determined to ensure that the values of the reef are not threatened by trawling. At the same time, we have always accepted that it is a multiple use park. Provided other commercial or recreational uses are compatible with the conservation values that we want to protect, then we welcome them. Fishing creates a lot of jobs. It creates wealth. It is an important industry in Australia.In relation to protected areas within the park, we are reviewing those as well. When that study has been completed, that will also be fed into our ongoing regime for proper conservation of what is a very important asset. We are addressing the particular issue. It is not going to be easy, but I am confident that we will be able to give assurances to the Australian people that fishing on the reef in the future will be conducted in a sustainable way.5454Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The CSIRO report that the minister mentioned on the effects of trawling on the Great Barrier Reef reveals that there is very little awareness of how long it takes the seabed to recover from a trawling episode. Without that fairly fundamental and vital knowledge, how does the minister believe it is possible to pitch a particular level of trawling and identify it as being ecologically sustainable and appropriate for a world heritage area such as the Great Barrier Reef or for adequate trawl management plans to be developed? What resources are being directed to further developing this knowledge base which is still currently so lacking?5454Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The honourable senator is correct: we do not have all of the knowledge we would like in this instance. Thus, we are sponsoring research programs—through GBRMPA directly, through the CRC on reef research, through the Australian Institute of Marine Science based in Townsville and through other institutions—to build an information base that will enable us to be confident of sustainable trawling rates in the future. In the meantime, as I have said before, the way to address the issue is to ensure that we adopt a precautionary approach. That message has been conveyed to the Queensland fishing authority responsible for preparing the management plan. I am looking forward to receiving their draft within the next few weeks. We will be responding to it further.54545454Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Can the minister confirm that Telstra is planning to close a number of its call centres as part of further rationalisation of its operations? Is it the case that Telstra was intending to finalise its plans for closure in May but delayed any formal announcement of this because of fears that this could prejudice the outcome of the debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 ? Further, can the minister inform the Senate as to how many of these closures will be in rural and regional areas?5455Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, I do not know anything about that. What I do know is that call centres are a growth industry. They are very successful. I cannot imagine why Telstra would want to cut back on them. They happen to be an area that has benefited large parts of rural Australia, particularly Tasmania. Some 2,600 jobs have been created in Tasmania with call centres, the last one being Vodafone's with between 400 and 700 people.What you tend to find, particularly if you ask people like Dr Brian Clark from Vodafone, is that time and again those who are staffing these call centres outside the metropolitan areas have much greater empathy with the callers, they are much less inclined to be job mobile and they relate very much to the work that they are doing. Because the cost structures are lower, it is much more attractive for companies to locate call centres in these areas, whether they are service centres, help desks or simply agglomerations for various businesses. Ansett have already located a call centre in Tasmania, for example. There have been some very big success stories, including, of course, Centrelink.There is no doubt that Australia is one of the world leaders in terms of call centres. If you are trying to bag call centres or if you are trying to bag Telstra, I really think you are missing the mark. You ought to be out there acknowledging that telecommunications is a growth sector. The role of the parliament—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You know nothing about it!LD4Senator ALSTON—You do not have to know much to be in front of the opposition, that is what I have found. As long as you are a little bit ahead, you are a mile in front in a two-horse race. The way you mob have been performing shows that you are absolutely going backwards.It was a shambles in the parliament this morning when we had Labor trying to sneak through on the voices until they were flushed out by Senator Stott Despoja who forced them to vote no on the committee stage of the online bill. Then they turned around and, with weasel words, said they were not going to oppose it on the third reading. If that is leadership in communications, they have a long way to go. I might as well stay home, because there is not much of a challenge around. We are determined to promote the growth of call centres to make Australia a more attractive regional location. I have no doubt that Telstra sees this as a growth area as well.5455Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My recollection from this morning, Minister, is that I advised the Senate that we would be opposing passage of that bill at the third reading. Anyway, Minister, is it the case that Ms Judy Slatyer, Managing Director of Operator Assistance Services, has already informed staff of call centre closures and that other senior managers have described the announcement as politically sensitive, a fact which will affect the timing of the announcement?5455Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not have any such information. Your union links may well be better than mine. As I informed the Senate this morning, I let my BLF membership lapse many years ago and I have not renewed it, so it is probably understandable—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Point of order!LD4Senator ALSTON—Sit down, will you?Honourable senators interjecting—RF4COOKSenator Cook—A point of order, Madam President.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, sit down.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am outraged, Madam President, to have a little jerk like this jumping to his feet in that way.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, your behaviour is unacceptable. With a lot of noise it is not possible to hear someone even as close as you, Senator Cook, when you stand up and say, `A point of order.' Senator Cook, on a point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Thank you, Madam President, but I do not expect to be told by the minister how to act; I expect to be ruled by you. The minister said, to the first of these two questions, that he did not know. He did not promise to take the question on notice and get back to the questioner.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease making so much noise.RF4COOKSenator Cook—He said to the supplementary question that he did not know and he has proceeded to lecture the Senate. Madam President, if he does not know the answer to the question put, how can he be relevant to the question at all when he proceeds to speak? Isn't he just batting out time to waste the time of the Senate? Shouldn't he then be sat down and shouldn't he at least have the courtesy to this chamber to say that he will get back to answer the question if he does not know the answer now, as he should?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There was a supplementary question asked and the minister is able to deal with that if he has the answer to it or wishes to explain it. When a supplementary question is asked, the minister is entitled to be called. I cannot direct him as to how he deals with it but I am entitled to call him if the questioner does ask a supplementary question.LD4Senator ALSTON—The short conclusion, Madam President, is that if Senator Bishop had had any interest in seeking follow-up information, he would have asked for it. He did not, and therefore he has got what he asked for.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous5456545615:02:005456Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) to questions without notice asked today, relating to Aboriginal reconciliation and National Sorry Day.It has to be said at the start that we were looking for a lot more from the minister today and a lot more from the government on the issue of reconciliation and National Sorry Day. But it has also got to be said that the words of the Governor-General, Bill Deane, are reflected in the attitudes of many people in this place this afternoon. It was a depressing and frustrating performance by the minister. Today is National Sorry Day. Today is a day when people all over Australia are coming together, not to be divisive and—indeed with most of them—not even to be political. They are getting together to try and heal the past and to build social cohesion, to bring black Australians and white Australians together. It has also got to be said—as I said during question time—that Australians are coming together from all walks of life. Whether they be from church groups, business groups or general community groups, they are coming together to try and overcome the politics of this particular issue and to try and build social cohesion in this country.All of those people concerned about social leadership would have been even more concerned by the performance they saw this afternoon from the minister for Aboriginal affairs. It was a performance of bombast, avoiding the issues, avoiding the questions and trying deliberately to present himself and his government as being interested when not only Australia knows they are not but also the rest of the world is increasingly of the opinion that they are not. He talks about his and my being on stage, singing together. The truth about that performance was he was an hour and a half late—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That's right—disgraceful, unprincipled.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—When he was asked to come on the stage when everyone else was singing, his response was, `I don't have a voice,' and when asked to contribute to the function in financial terms, he said, `I've got no money.' This is a minister who has no interest in and no voice for indigenous Australians. The reality is, when you are looking at the history of his government's performance, there has been no money for a long time for the problems facing indigenous Australians. And he comes in here and tries to pretend that he was on stage singing! He had no voice and he was photographed showing no money. He has no compassion at all for the people for whom he is supposed to have direct responsibility. But it is not just there that our concern ends. Our concern also is that, after three years, the Prime Minister still indulges this incompetence and this irresponsibility. The Prime Minister still sits there on his hands hoping our history will disappear. Not only is the minister inadequate, incompetent and irresponsible but also we have a Prime Minister who continues to indulge him; a Prime Minister who by keeping this minister in the portfolio and by not facing up to his role as leader of the country basically diminishes that position.We do not have to go to Labor prime ministers of the past to find the leadership that is needed on these sorts of issues. We can go to Liberal prime ministers as well. And the one that we can always go to for the degree of foresight, leadership and compassion on this range of issues is—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Malcolm Fraser.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Without a doubt. It was just a few weeks ago that Malcolm Fraser said of the Reconciliation Council in Walking Together magazine:Unless non-Aboriginal Australians are prepared to look at the past openly and honestly, there will be no real and effective reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians.No-one can put it better than that, and that is the kernel of this issue. It is not going to cost an extra dollar for the Prime Minister to do the decent thing. It is not going to cost the taxpayer an extra dollar. In fact, it will cost the taxpayer a lot more if we take the road of litigation, division and conflict; if we take the road that we have taken so far—of having prime ministerial office and ministerial office directions to court cases in Darwin—instead of the alternative road of reconciliation. This is a Prime Minister who lives in denial: he believes in the so-called black armband view of history as a way of basically ignoring the past and eradicating the past.I do not care what the Prime Minister does to his own reputation but what he is doing is trashing the reputation of Australia and Australians. It is just over a year to the Olympics and if this government think they can avoid the critical issues of reconciliation in the lead-up to the Olympics then they have something else coming to them. If the wets in this government continue to hide under the mushroom in their weakness and if people like Senator Hill, Senator Vanstone, Senator Payne and Senator Coonan do not face their responsibilities, history will consign them and define them in the way that the Prime Minister chooses to define himself. (Time expired)15:07:005457Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I have just listened to Senator Bolkus in a most amazing contribution describing Senator Herron as—and I quote Senator Bolkus's words—`inadequate', `incompetent' and `irresponsible'. If there was ever a sector of this community that was dealt with inadequately, incompetently and irresponsibly over the last period of government by the Labor Party, it was our indigenous communities and indigenous affairs. What a disgraceful record greeted this government when it came to office in 1996 in relation to indigenous issues.Senator Faulkner interjecting—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Madam Deputy President, that is the most disgusting language I have heard in this place since I have been here. I ask that you ask Senator Faulkner to withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am about to ask Senator Faulkner to stop his interjecting and withdraw the snide comments that he has just made across the chamber.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, if they were snide I would not withdraw them, but if they are unparliamentary I will.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—It was a disgraceful record which this government found when it came to office in relation to indigenous issues. It is all very well to stand up—XI4REYNOLDSSenator Reynolds—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I know this is a relatively heated debate, but I think we should stick with the facts. If Senator Ferris checks the records of the United Nations, she would find that Australia had an excellent record in indigenous affairs.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. It is a debating point.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—It is very interesting that the opposition simply does not want to confront the difficulties that were on the plate of Senator Herron when he came into this portfolio. I am very aware of those difficulties as chair of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund; and Senator Reynolds is a member of the committee. We have travelled widely and listened to evidence that reconciliation is occurring on the ground. As Senator Herron said in answer to a question today, there is a people's movement on reconciliation; and I would suggest that those opposite might do well to get out of the cities, go over the hills and go and talk to some of these people on the ground in the communities.Senator Crossin and I were able to listen during a recent visit to Broome to some quite excellent examples of reconciliation on the ground in Broome. The town council of Broome and the local Rubibi negotiating group got together, sat down and worked through a new town plan for the Broome area which reflects the sensitivities and cultural appropriateness of a number of areas in the township of Broome. For the first time, the Broome City Council now has a town plan that reflects the areas which are culturally sensitive to both the long-time residents and the indigenous people. I am sure I speak for the many people who attended the committee hearing when I say how reassuring it was to see that at last people are sitting down together and talking through these issues.There is no doubt that reconciliation is a people's movement and it can only grow upwards from the community. I urge everybody to get involved, to get out of the cities and to go out in the bush and sit down with these people and listen to them. Do not talk to them about what you are going to do; listen to them talk about their priorities. Over the last few months I have talked to people on the ground, indigenous women and indigenous families, and the Senate might find it quite surprising that their priorities are not quite the same as might appear to be the case in here when we hear people like Senator Bolkus suggesting that Aboriginals look for us to overcome prejudice.On the ground, when you sit down around the table with these people, the priorities that they talk about are the priorities for everybody's family, not just indigenous families. They talk about jobs for their kids. They talk about homes for them to live in that are safe and free from family violence. They talk about having a real chance to get a start in life and to have all of the priorities that every other family has.Just yesterday I was proud to ask the question in parliament which led to the story that was in the newspapers this morning about the $115 million boost for Aborigines. This is about jobs for Aboriginal families and their children—their daughters, their sons and their grandchildren. That is what indigenous communities want. That is where reconciliation will start and that is what Senator Herron and this government are delivering—not empty words, not empty rhetoric, not just songs, but action on the ground where it counts, where it matters and, most importantly, where Aboriginal people want it to start: not in the cities but in the communities where they live. (Time expired)15:13:005458Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to take note of Senator Herron's answers today. I am not entirely sure where to start because this is a sad day, particularly for this government. Having just listened to Senator Ferris about getting out there on the ground and listening to people, it is a shame that Senator Herron did not listen to the people this morning gathered in the Great Hall.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is a bit hard to listen when you arrive half an hour late.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—That is right; very late. I do not think I heard one Aboriginal person in that Great Hall, nor have I read one article in today's paper, saying anything positive about this government's attitude towards Aboriginal people and the state it finds itself in with respect to reconciliation. An article in the Age talks about the sorry state of reconciliation. An article in the Canberra Times suggests that the Prime Minister's definition of healing would help.Let me quote from this morning's Melbourne Age:The Governor General, Sir William Deane said this week that it was "difficult not to be discouraged, even depressed" about the future of the reconciliation process between black and white Australians. Sir William said he believed reconciliation would ultimately be achieved, but later rather than sooner.I put it to you that it will be the people of this country who achieve the reconciliation long before this government realises what is going on. The Journey of Healing started today but at this stage this government are still trying to find their road map and pack their bags to get ready for it.When I asked Senator Herron today about consultation over the stolen generation report and about why the Social Justice Commissioner's 1998 report had stated that no meetings were held, he admitted that he was not aware of those allegations. He admitted that he was not quite sure what was happening. He said that he had met with Sir Ronald Wilson, but could not quite confirm with me whether meetings with officers from state departments had occurred or whether chief executives of state and federal governments had met. He then went on to say that he believed the government can play a role in the reconciliation process, but that in fact it was a people's movement.We heard today how the Aboriginal people of this country are actually waiting for some leadership. I put it to the people who might be listening: where was the Prime Minister this morning? What a great moment it would have been for this country to see that man step on the stage and make a comment about today's Journey of Healing. He was probably off meeting with the Democrats over his tax package, which shows you just what an absolute mess and sham he has got this country in at the moment. That ceremony today went for 1½ hours and he could not even spare five minutes to get onto that stage or even to say, `I am here' and go again. That today would have been at least a start and a great symbol of where this government is heading. But it is a sad indictment.How many recommendations of the stolen generation report have been implemented? I heard this morning on the radio that less than a dozen have been implemented. Let us have a look at some of them. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies is to be funded by the Commonwealth to develop modules on the history of these policies. Where is the money in the budget for that? The Commonwealth is to legislate to implement the genocide convention with full domestic effect. It has never happened. The Commonwealth is to expand the funding of indigenous language and to make sure that indigenous communities can maintain and teach those languages. Let us look what is happening in the Northern Territory with bilingual education and the role that this Commonwealth government has not played in that decision. Recommendation 26 talks about the introduction of freedom of information legislation in the Northern Territory based on the Commonwealth model. What has this government done to encourage the Northern Territory government to go ahead and produce that legislation?In his answers today, Senator Herron talks about the buckets of money that he believes have been thrown at Aboriginal people as part of this reconciliation process. It is one step forward and one step back with this government. An employment strategy yesterday, but no recognition of custodianship in the preamble. No leadership. The article in the Canberra Times goes on to say:If the journey of healing is progressing in the hearts and in the lives of ordinary Australians—as Senator Herron said today—it must ultimately be a directionless journey for as long as it remains leaderless.That is exactly what the reconciliation process in this country is doing at the moment. This government refuses to take any kind of lead. (Time expired)15:18:005460Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I enter this debate today as a person who has spent much of his life living very close to Aboriginal people. In fact, during my primary school days there was only one year at the primary school I went to when there were more European kids than there were Aboriginals. I find the vitriol, the vindictiveness and the words coming out of the mouths of some of those on the other side absolutely incredible. In this particular issue I acknowledge the role that Senator Reynolds has played and I would remove her from that particular class, but the gibberish and the stuff we heard from Senator Bolkus today indicated that the man had no idea of what he was talking about. It is very sad indeed.I support all the comments that Senator Herron made today, but one in particular, that is, reconciliation, will only come from the heart. If I have time I will tell a little story about how reconciliation comes from the heart. Those on the other side talk about leadership. Who put the issue of reconciliation up-front on the agenda? It was the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Howard, at his acceptance speech after the last election when he spoke to the Australian people. He was the man who put it up there and he gave the indication to those of us who can do something about it: nobody else—and not the Labor Party.In the election before, who got dumped for their pathetic performance in terms of Aboriginal affairs in this country? None other than Robert Tickner, who was the minister at that time. You people need to think very closely about that when you come into this place throwing rocks from a glass house because you do not have very much to be proud of in your 13 years of government. Who was it who turned black on black? It was your unworkable Native Title Act.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Gareth Evans.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—There you are. You want to think about that. You need to come to Western Australia and have a look at some of the communities and see what has happened. You would not be making these sorts of charges in this place today.The particular story I want to tell you is something that happened to me recently. It also involved the Hon. Ernie Bridge, a former Labor minister in the state government of Western Australia and an Aboriginal. We were approached because a family which was divided had a do-gooder arbitrator advise where a son, who was unfortunately lost, should be buried. He made a bad decision. He made an ill-informed decision. He made a decision that took no consideration of the customs of the particular Aboriginal group. Ernie Bridge and I were able to sort that out. We did it quietly, we did not go out there blowing trumpets and we did not seek to get any kudos out of it. But it is important to be told because it demonstrates action which leads to reconciliation, and that is the only way that we will achieve reconciliation in this country.We can talk all we like about having the high words up there; we can talk all about what different people may say. But it is only actions that come from the heart which will resolve this particular problem. One thing that we have done since we have been in government is to respond to the call from the Aboriginal people for more assistance in education, for more assistance in housing and for more assistance in health. We have responded in a very strong way.If you go out to those communities—and I include the rural doctor problem in this—they will tell you that it is better than it was and it is getting better. It is not as good as it should be; it has a long way to go. But when people come into this place to debate these issues and make the claims they do by slinging mud across this place, I wish that they would recognise and understand the damage they are doing. It is not needed. It is not called for. It does not help those people that all my life I have called my cousins, which is the lingo that is used.I make an appeal to those people on that side of the chamber to get their eye on the ball and to start addressing the issues that matter in terms of reconciliation. That is the only way it will be possible to speed up this process, which some people like me are very frustrated about. We would like to see it go faster, but it can only happen if we put our hearts and souls, our minds and our thoughts behind it. (Time expired)15:23:005461Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I have no disagreement with many of the comments that Senator Crane has made but I am disappointed that Senator Herron has left the chamber for this debate. I do understand that ministers have very hectic schedules and no doubt he has appointments, but it is a pity that he could not stay and listen to this debate.It is true that reconciliation is a people's movement. But it is equally true that you cannot have a people's movement within Australia without the national government of the day providing leadership and joining with the people's movement. Of course it is important that it comes from people throughout the community. But you cannot have the community moving and then have the Prime Minister in particular—and, I am sure, several of his ministers—not being prepared to take certain steps of leadership. We have a people's movement but we have no government movement at the moment.That concern has been expressed not only by the Governor-General but also by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. That is why I was quite genuine and sincere—I was not attempting to score political points which, as honourable senators would know, I would never want to do—in saying that I wish the Prime Minister would listen to Malcolm Fraser, because I think Malcolm Fraser for a variety of reasons really understands the issue.I think the Prime Minister has backed himself into the proverbial corner, does not understand the issue and now feels obliged to just say `no apology' and hope the issue will go away. It will not go away. The issue will be there because of the people's movement; the issue will be there because the international community cannot understand why it is so difficult for the Prime Minister to give a national apology, particularly when as of today all state governments and the ACT government have given an apology. The Northern Territory government has not given an apology and the national government has not given an apology. People overseas cannot understand that. Senator Herron made the point that no country can be held to ransom for past events. That is very easy to say but, when you start to look at history, it is not true. In the United States President Clinton apologised to Afro-Americans, whose ancestors were forced into slavery. He did not have a problem with giving an apology for past policies in that country. Finally, to his credit, the Japanese Prime Minister—after some considerable agitation on behalf of comfort women—had no difficulty giving an apology to the so-called comfort women who were forced into prostitution in World War II. Germany's Helmut Kohl gave an apology to the Jews. In the peace process, Prime Minister Blair apologised to the Irish for past treatment. What is so hard about giving an apology? It does happen in other countries, Senator Herron; it does happen in other countries, Prime Minister Howard. Other countries do not seem to be so nervous about this word `apology' or about saying they are sorry.The churches have given wonderful leadership, which unfortunately is not forthcoming as yet from our Prime Minister. In 1996 Australia's leading religious leaders compared the forcible separation of Aboriginal children from their parents to a Nazi atrocity and demanded a national nonpartisan apology. The National Council of Churches in Australia—which includes the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army—in a special forum at Parliament House said that racism in Australia had increased and they thought a national apology was appropriate.It is very hard to argue that there is anything very special about asking for a national apology. We have had it from the states, we have had it in a number of different ways from community leaders, and we have had it from local governments. I would agree that local government is leading the way on a national basis. Local government has actually taken the place of the national government. (Time expired)15:28:005462Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—In the very brief time that I have available to me I will take up a couple of the points made by Senator Bolkus. He said that there was no money for indigenous people in this budget and that even Malcolm Fraser's proud record does not compare with the amount of money that we have put into Aboriginal affairs in this budget. There are a number of new initiatives in the key areas of health, education, employment and economic development, where indigenous people who are particularly disadvantaged will be assisted. That is where we as a government are determined to give aid—where people are in particular need, we provide help. That is the way in which assistance should be provided.A record $2.2 billion will be spent on indigenous specific programs in 1999-2000. Indigenous employment programs amounting to $52 million were launched yesterday by Mr Reith, including improved living conditions and better access to primary health care, aged care and pharmaceuticals—$21.4 million; extra funds for education programs, particularly to improve literacy, numeracy and school retention rates—$16.3 million; and the extension of the ATSIC/Army Community Assistance Program, which provides vital housing and infrastructure in remote communities—nearly $50 million over four years. You will remember the disgrace of the Labor years, when we saw the famous picture of a community that did not have running water, not even a working tap. This has been a marvellous project whereby the Australian Army—the ADF—has been able to provide assistance to remote Aboriginal communities.There are extra funds for the reconciliation process, up from $5 million to $6.5 million. The government has continued to identify reconciliation with indigenous Australians as a priority area. Expenditure on reconciliation will be increased to $6.5 million from $5 million last year. This increase reflects the government's recognition of the very important place of the process in Australian society.One of the biggest contributions the government can make to reconciliation is to address indigenous disadvantage. This budget contains initiatives which are significant steps towards achieving that goal. A number of those, in addition to the ones that I have mentioned, are the removal of the inequities from the Community Development Employment Program so as to give participants access to benefits such as rent assistance and allowance equivalent to those under Work for the Dole, and the development of measures of relative disadvantage by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allow more effective targeting of resources to indigenous people.To expand on a number of these programs, from 1 July 1999 the new Indigenous Employment Program will be established. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business launched the IEP initiative yesterday. The program will place particular emphasis on private sector opportunities and support for indigenous small business and in 1999-2000 will involve an extra $25 million of funding for indigenous employment for the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio. Total expenditure on the IEP in 1999-2000 will be $52 million, including $2 million for the Small Business Support Fund, which will provide business preparation support for indigenous small businesses.A number of changes to the very successful CDEP scheme—the indigenous Work for the Dole scheme—will begin this next financial year. These will provide CDEP participants with access to all additional benefits, such as rent assistance and health care cards, which are otherwise available to those receiving unemployment benefits—a very helpful change for indigenous people who are disadvantaged. It will also provide $20 a fortnight, similar to that available to Work for the Dole participants. Legislation to implement these changes is currently before the Senate.Community organisations managing individual CDEPs will also become eligible to receive payments under the new IEP when they place participants in full-time employ ment. Under this initiative, community organisations will receive $2,000 for each person placed into a job who remains there for six months. Also, in economic development, the government plans to establish a new organisation to be called Indigenous Business Australia. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.546310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:54637TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian government to:(1) actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;(2) actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;(3) work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from seven citizens)54638TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from eight citizens)546325TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC'.(2) The Senate votes to maintain the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 25 citizens)54636DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from six citizens)546332TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement;2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations;3. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards;4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 32 citizens)54648TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the Undersigned shows that we believe that the current Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme provides benefits to retired members which are overly generous and unfair.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:Act swiftly to bring the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme in line with community standards by:(1) Reducing the taxpayer subsidy which currently stands at an average of $6 contributed by taxpayers for every $1 contributed by Senators and members;(2) Instructing the Remuneration Tribunal to substantially reduce benefits;(3) Removing the early payment of benefits, so that they are payable at the age of 55 in line with the rest of the community;(4) Supporting the Australian Democrats' Private Members' Bill to overhaul the politicians' superannuation scheme to achieve these aims.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from eight citizens)546422DT6Bartlett 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 22 citizens)54648TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament Assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows that we care deeply about the future direction of the banking system within Australia.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Stand firm in their resistance to mergers between any of the four major banks. Any mergers would only reduce further the level of service offered to the community.2. Recognise that the banks should be required to meet minimum community service obligations expected in a civilised society.3. Engage in discussions with the four major banks in order to bring a stop to the increasing number of branch closures. These closures impact hardest on low-income earners and rural customers, a trend that must be resisted in order to make the banking industry fair and equitable.4. Force the banking industry to be accountable to the community, not just to shareholders.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from eight citizens)546436EU4O'Chee Sen BillTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:oppose the current Goods and Services Tax Packageinvestigate more equitable tax options which exempt basic foodstuffs and household services from additional taxationSenator O'CheeEU4Senator O'Chee(from 36 citizens)Petitions received.Notices54645464Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the announcement of the New South Wales Carr Labor Government that it will enact laws that will equalise, at law, the treatment of heterosexual and homosexual people in defacto relationships for the purposes of property and inheritance rights, (ii) other close relationships such as adult children caring for aged parents will be covered by the bill, (iii) the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition (Mrs Chikarovski) argued in favour of the bill, although coalition members of parliament were given the right to abstain from the vote, and (iv) the New South Wales National Party has agreed not to oppose the bill; and(b) congratulates the Carr Government for honouring the promise it gave to the people of New South Wales 5 years ago.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That:(1) On Thursday, 27 May 1999: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm shall be government business only; (c) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(2) The Senate meet on Friday, 28 May 1999, and that: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be government business only; (c) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended for 45 minutes from approximately 12.30 pm; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) during the recent visit of Indonesian political leaders, West Papuans called for independence for West Papua (Irian Jaya), and (ii) the widespread boycott of participation in Indonesia's upcoming general election is being organised by West Papuan leaders; and (b) calls on the Australian Government to maximise diplomatic efforts to ensure the rights and safety of West Papuans and their political leaders. Committees54655465546515:35:005465Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the ninth report of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 9 OF 19991. The Committee met on 25 May 1999.2. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 23 March 1999). Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 30 March 1999). Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Import Processing Charges Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999). Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999. Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999(deferred from meeting of 27 April 1999). Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999). A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999. A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999. A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999.3. A previous recommendation not to refer the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 to a committee was reconsidered and the committee resolved to recommend that the bill be referred to a committee as follows:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateNavigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998immediatelyEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education10 August 1999(Paul Calvert)Chair26 May 1999Business54665466Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That consideration of business continue from 6.50 p.m till 7.20 p.m. today.15:35:005466O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The opposition does not oppose this motion. We did suggest, however, that this time should be allotted to the consideration of the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . That suggestion was made last night, and I had the impression that it would find favour with the government, but I find that that is not quite the position. It has just been communicated to me that, if we complete the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 , before the chamber at the present time, then we may proceed with the debate on the wool privatisation legislation.I am unaware of whether that debate will conclude in time but, given what has been taking place in the chamber over the last few days, I would have to say that one could not be confident that at least some, if not a significant part, of that additional 30 minutes will not be taken up by that debate. There is a possibility that all of it will be taken up by that debate. Assuming that the chamber permits the consideration of the wool stockpile privatisation legislation in non-controversial business time tomorrow, we will have one hour and 15 minutes to conclude that matter.The opposition will not be seeking to delay that matter unduly and will, as I understand it, limit its contribution to, effectively, 40 minutes. However, if there is not a plan B, there is at least the possibility that that bill will not be completed in the time available tomorrow. I understand that, if that is not the case, that will put the process in terms of the proposed timetable in some jeopardy. I suggest to the government that it reconsider and call on that legislation at 6.50 p.m., as was suggested last night.15:38:005466Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I was not going to speak on this matter, but I do want to support what Senator O'Brien has said. I do not understand why the government has not been prepared to listen to appeals not only from the Democrats and others in this place but from within its own ranks that the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999, which we all support but which nevertheless is a very serious piece of legislation, should be given more time than simply that allocated for consideration of non-controversial bills tomorrow.I know that there are a number of senators within the government ranks who really would like to speak on this legislation. They have been gagged by the government, and I think it is a great pity that an opportunity has not been given to have a longer debate on the bill. I do not know whether it is pigheadedness or what, but everyone wanted to cooperate on this one; it is a very serious bill.I think Senator O'Brien has put forward a very reasonable proposition and that is why I would like to support it. I would expect that if we had some kind of free vote in here a lot of government senators would also support the proposition. Perhaps we can say to the government: `You might reconsider this one,' because we are actually doing this in a very cooperative spirit. Even if that is not always evident here, most of the time it is. Certainly it is the sort of bill that ought to be given more consideration than simply being dealt with during the time set aside for non-controversial bills at lunchtime on a Thursday.15:40:005467Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My office has received a number of calls from various people concerned not only with the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 but with other issues that the government have said are urgent or that they would like put into the non-controversial slot. I think Senator O'Brien's proposal ought to be considered very carefully by the government. We are trying as a Senate to be as hardworking as we can and as representative as we can on the issues we are being asked to debate. But here we clearly have a number of areas the government has said it would like put into the non-controversial slot and which, quite honestly, will not get a guernsey simply because the whole time will be taken up, even with the Senate trying its best to reduce the amount of debating time taken up by that particular bill. I would like to think that, in the spirit of cooperation, the government would consider a useful proposal like that.15:41:005467Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will formally say—because I have not put this through the normal channels in relation to the proposal that I put to the opposition whip informally—that we think the suggestion is helpful to try to ensure that the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 is finished. It should be able to be finished in the time available tomorrow at lunchtime. The government has a list of a dozen or so packages that we regard as being of incredibly high priority and very desirable to have finished by 30 June, and the wool privatisation bill is one of those. We are thankful to the opposition and other senators for assisting us in suggesting which bills should be dealt with and when they think they should be dealt with.As I have said, I formally say for the record, and therefore for the information of all senators, that if we can finish the bill that is currently before the chamber—and all indications are that we will—we will go on to wool privatisation in the slot that we are considering at the moment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices54675467Items of business were postponed as follows—General business notice of motion no. 228 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to Collins class submarines, postponed till 27 May 1999.General business notice of motion no. 225 standing in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy (Senator Quirke) for today, relating to the extension of time for the committee to report, postponed till 27 May 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 28 June 1999.General business notice of motion no. 206 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to indigenous education, postponed till 27 May 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, postponed till 27 May 1999.Committees546754675467Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins) put:That the following matters be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day of the second sitting week in November 2000:The effectiveness of the vocational education and training sector in developing the educational skills of the Australian people and the skills formation and productivity of the Australian work force, including:(a) an evaluation of national priorities set for Australia's vocational education system, with particular reference to: (i) resource allocation across the sector, between the states and territories and within program priorities, (ii) demographic distribution and equity of structured training opportunities, (iii) opportunities for youth and for older people, and (iv) the respective obligations of industry and government;(b) an assessment of the quality of provision Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and private providers on the delivery of nationally recognised and non-recognised Vocational Education and Training (VET) services and programs, including: (i) the adequacy of current administration, assessment and audit arrangements for registered training organisations and the credentials they issue, (ii) processes for the recognition of registered training organisations, the effectiveness of compliance audits and validations of registered training organisations, operations and sanctions for breaching the conditions of registration, (iii) the level and quality of vocational education and training occurring within registered training organisations, including TAFE, private providers, workplaces and schools, (iv) the extent to which employers of apprentices and trainees are meeting their obligations to deliver training on the job and the adequacy of monitoring arrangements, (v) the range of work and facilities available for training on the job, (vi) the attainment of competencies under national training packages, and (vii) the reasons for increasing rates of non-completion of apprenticeships and traineeships;(c) an examination of the impact on the quality and accessibility of VET resulting from the policy of Growth through Efficiencies and User Choice in VET, with particular reference to the: (i) viability of TAFE, particularly in regional Australia, (ii) quality of structured training, (iii) quality of teaching, (iv) appropriateness of curriculum and learning resources, (v) range and availability of student services, and (vi) effects of fees and charges on TAFE;(d) an evaluation of the provision of Commonwealth and State employers subsidies, including: (i) the effectiveness of existing subsidies arrangements in meeting national vocational education and training needs, (ii) the impact of changes to New Apprenticeships policy which broadened employer trainee subsidies to include existing workers, and (iii) accountability and audit procedures within the Department of Employment, Education and Youth Affairs, the Australian National Training Authority and state training authorities;(e) an evaluation of the growth, breadth, effectiveness and future provision of vocational education in schools, including: (i) the quality of provision of vocational education and training in both government and non-government schools, (ii) the relationship between vocational education in schools, and accredited training packages, (iii) the effectiveness and quality of curriculum materials and teaching, (iv) accountability provisions for the funding of vocational education in schools, and (v) school to work transitional arrangements; and(f) an assessment of the consistency, validity and accessibility of statistical information on the performance of national vocational education and training systems, especially relating to apprenticeships and traineeships. 15:48:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. 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. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Alston, 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.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. 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.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Denman, K. J. MacGibbon, D. J.Faulkner, J. P. Abetz, E.Hutchins, S. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Ferris, J.Schacht, C. C. Heffernan, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous5469Motion (by Senator Brown) not agreed to:That the Senate endorses the Coalition senators' recommendation, in the 25th Report of the Select Committee on Superannuation, that, `future members of parliament should not receive any pension benefit until age 55' (paragraph 3.90).Miscellaneous5469Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) commends the establishment of an Australian Embassy in Zagreb, Croatia;(b) applauds attempts to strengthen our diplomatic representation in the region; and(c) acknowledges that groups such as the Australian Democrats have long supported the establishment of such an embassy, as indicated by their notice of motion of 14 October 1996.Committees546954695469Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the development of the Hinchinbrook Channel be extended to 24 June 1999.54695469Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the Jabiluka uranium mine be extended to 28 June 1999.Miscellaneous546915:52:005469Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 230, standing in my name for today and calling for the Senate to agree to the notion that people who kick footballs with their left feet are normal, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.547015:52:005470Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 230.I will not delay the Senate for long on this matter. I would have preferred that this motion be declared formal and voted on. All senators are aware that, while the motion has a somewhat light-hearted import to it, there is a very deep and significant connotation as well. The fact that it has been denied formality gives it some status which it did not have before. However, it is important that we should take note of discrimination which is out of keeping with the way most Australian think these days. It should not just fly past over the shoulder.This motion comes out of a debate yesterday in which Senator Alston said, in effect, that he did not endorse the notion that lesbian relationships were part of the normal spectrum, as I had put it to the Senate. He went on to point out that people who kick footballs with their left feet are in a minority of maybe 10 per cent or less and said, in effect, that that was not normal either. What we see here is a failure of terminology, which has very drastic results. Senator Alston was trying to say that people who have the attributes I have just enumerated are in a minority. Sure, and so is Senator Alston when it comes to many of his attributes. So are we all. But the point I was making is that that is part of the normal spectrum of society.I am not on my feet and pursuing this matter to defend left-foot kickers like, for example, Royce Hart or Ian Stewart, and I do not know which foot is used by Ian Roberts to kick footballs in another code. That is not really the point here. I think even Senator Alston would agree that that is part of the normal, magnificent spectrum of these athletes. They add something to society. Their prowess in their sports is part of the normal spectrum of society.If we can apply that to folk who have those attributes then, when it comes to sexuality, we ought to do the same. We ought not to be in the situation where, when it comes to sexuality—this is not any longer a laughing matter—there are serious remainders of bigotry with statements such as `No, that's not normal' and `That's not part of the spectrum'. That is why I am making a point of this matter. It is an important point. We must not allow, in parliament, the implication to go out to young people in particular that their sexuality, whatever it might be, is abnormal. Because it is not. It is part of the magnificent spectrum of human sexuality and it ought to be celebrated as such and they ought to be encouraged to be able to celebrate it as such.My motion is the result of a specific move by a coalition senator to nobble an afternoon program on television, Breakers. We are told by the Daily Telegraph that Senator Synon had gone to the Australian Broadcasting Authority to complain about a lesbian relationship—and apparently a transient one at that—being portrayed on afternoon TV. Goodness, what would the children do if they saw two women who were having a potentially loving relationship, as against a man and a woman or a man and a man, or whatever it might be? The point here is that this is not only an attempt at censorship; it is an attempt to deny children access to how the world works, in all its wonder and all its spectrum of differences, and that we human beings have a plethora of different ways of expressing ourselves, none less than when it comes to loving each other. It is a point worth taking.Senator Alston might have mixed up his phraseology yesterday, but I think Senator Synon, who has apparently got the support of her party because I have heard no dissembling from her move, has got it very wrong indeed. I would like to hear from the government that they do not support the move that she has made and to know that it is a misguided, old-fashioned, out-of-date individual making this move without the imprimatur of the government. (Time expired)15:57:005470Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam Deputy President, I was just waiting a little while to see if anyone else was wishing to speak on this.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I was already up.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Sorry, but I will speak now and I will be very happy to hear Senator Faulkner's contribution.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were left-footed.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I was a little slow getting to my right or left foot. The concern and the urgency here is whether or not we are being hurtled into a world of compulsory averages. Those people who were concerned about the rise of far right politics at the last election would probably have heard various speeches where a particular politician said, `I think I speak for all Australians when I say . . . '. That really annoys me because it actually says that there is some idea of what is an average or appropriate or acceptable Australian and that those people who do not fit into that average or so-called norm are not normal or not accepted in the rest of society.I am also reminded of the words `You don't speak for me' in a song by Judy Small that was put together because of what was said by another politician when making this very kind of speech. The song expressed the anger that was felt against someone who was making statements which were unaccepting of other people, statements which forced the idea of not accepting, welcoming and celebrating diversity within our society.So yes, the motion has a tongue-in-cheek element to it, but it is still urgent in our society that we recognise the moves that are being made to enforce the average, to make people fit into some sort of square peg or round hole and to suggest that those people who do not fit into somebody's concept of average are not normal, not acceptable and therefore to be marginalised within our society. That is the urgency of what we are arguing today. I would be very keen to hear that there is support from other parties in the Senate for this motion.16:00:005471Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. When I last rose to my feet, I was trying to work with the opposition and other parties in the Senate to progress an incredibly heavy legislative program that is now hours and hours behind where it should be at this stage.Senator Brown has raised very important and very serious issues by way of a frivolously worded motion. In his contribution to the debate on suspending standing orders, he has thoroughly misrepresented what Senator Alston said yesterday. I am not going to re-read what he said, but I do commend to anyone who wants to know what Senator Alston said on this matter to read the Hansard. It is absolutely and directly in contradiction to what Senator Brown and now Senator Margetts have said. Certainly, you can have a debate about what Senator Alston said, but it was actually quite sensible and very dissimilar to what Senator Brown had to say.16:02:005471Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I commence my contribution by saying, on behalf of the opposition, that we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders to debate this notice of motion that the Senate endorses the notion that people who kick footballs with their left foot are normal. However, I want to make clear that, as far as the opposition is concerned, a motion to suspend standing orders has been moved—not for the first time—as a result of inflammatory and flippant rhetoric from the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Alston.I say and put very clearly on the record that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, we are absolutely unimpressed with the comments that Senator Alston made in this chamber yesterday. We believe that those comments were inappropriate, they were insensitive and, of course, they were ignorant. In our view, it is unbecoming of any member of the Senate, let alone a senior government minister, to label sections of the Australian community as abnormal, as Senator Alston did, whatever the semantic definitions of the word `normal' might be. His reference in the chamber yesterday to left footers, by way of comparison to the gay and lesbian community, should in our view be treated with absolute contempt. It should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.We will not be supporting Senator Brown's motion for the suspension of standing orders because I feel, to some extent, that he has chosen to match Senator Alston's flippancy in the nature of the motion that he has moved and is seeking a suspension of standing orders on. I fear that part of Senator Brown's motivation in this is that it might be a publicity stunt, but I accept Senator Brown's motivation in protecting the community. However, those in the community that I think Senator Brown seeks to protect will be no better off as a result of a debate on a motion of the nature that we have before us at this time.So I think to use the chamber to pass a motion stating that people who kick with their left foot are normal is fundamentally a waste of the Senate's time. But, whatever the sarcastic intent of the motion might be, I do acknowledge that serious issues might underlie it. It is very unfortunate that Senator Alston chose to use this chamber to make such inappropriate and distasteful remarks yesterday. I do not think it is appropriate for the chamber to respond to those inappropriate and tasteless remarks by suspending standing orders to enable debate to take place on a motion in the form that Senator Brown proposes.I really think this is too important and serious an issue for us to engage in any more smart alec tactics such as we have seen from Senator Alston. I hope Senator Hill will refer to the Prime Minister the comments that Senator Alston has made and I hope the Prime Minister will force Senator Alston to take the appropriate action.16:07:005472Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In brief response to Senator Faulkner, I want to say how much I regret that he has chosen to use this opportunity to attempt to try to win a political point against Senator Alston. He obviously did so without having read the comments made by Senator Alston, which I have just now read. There was nothing judgmental in those comments at all. They have clearly been misrepresented by Senator Faulkner and I regret that. Senator Alston is as tolerant as any other senator in this place and I think it is important I put that on the record.Within these debates, we obviously do not seek to cause offence to any individual senator, and Senator Alston is certainly not of the type who would seek to cause any personal offence either. I think the Senate ought to get on with the government's program, as Senator Ian Campbell has so eloquently put it. I do not think the occasion should be used to politically abuse Senator Alston in circumstances where such abuse is totally unwarranted.16:08:005472Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats certainly support Senator Brown's substantive motion—the general business motion he is seeking to move by suspending standing orders—and the intent behind it. I think it is important to put the context from which the motion was derived. I am certainly not seeking to particularly impugn the tolerance levels or otherwise of Senator Alston or his motivation.The context in which the original comments were raised was in a debate on legislation which has put in place—given the vote of the Senate earlier on today, which I shall not reflect upon—a censorship regime which will lead to Internet sites that deal with issues of importance to gay and lesbian people being censored and people being unable to access those sites. Many sites of that type are the only outlets for information of importance to lesbian, gay and transsexual people. The censorship legislation which the Senate has passed will lead to many of those sites not being able to be accessed in many cases. Whether that is a deliberate consequence of the legislation on the part of the government or an inadvertent consequence is debatable, but it is nonetheless a consequence, and it is an undesirable consequence.The broader political message that that sends to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities is a negative one, particularly when it is linked to comments by other coalition senators who complained about the portrayal of a lesbian relationship, saying that it is not normal and that it is not suitable for children to be aware that such things exist. It is clearly a backward step in Australian society, which in many respects can hold itself up as one of the more accepting societies in the world.Certainly on behalf of the Democrats, in my role as spokesperson for the party on gay and lesbian issues, I have been keen to promote the importance of accepting all people on an equal basis, and I know it is something that many senators in all parties are keen to promote. That is the context of the motion, of course, and it is for that reason—it being in line with issues and values that the Democrats have tried to promote for many years, as well as specific concrete policy changes and legislative changes such as those that we have moved from time to time in this chamber—that we would support the motion. The debate we have had today has highlighted those issues. So I suppose the motion as to whether we should suspend standing orders is in many respects academic, because the importance of the issues needs to be aired, and we have had the opportunity to do so.16:11:005473Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Bartlett has put some very cogent reasons for a motion that is not before us, and I think that is the weakness. Had there been a serious motion before us that took up the issues Senator Bartlett has raised today, I think we would have got a more positive response around the chamber. One can see that the intent of Senator Brown was to—in some ways, in humorous code—try to reflect on this. Whilst that is appropriate in debate, I do not know that it is necessarily—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You tell me what the motion should have been.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It may well have been a motion that went to the tolerance in Australian society of people's choice of their own sexuality, and I have no difficulty with that.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—And use code words to get around—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Basically, a lot of people regard your motion as being flippant and as not going to the central argument. They will not understand the context—that a debate occurred in this chamber yesterday between Senator Brown and Senator Alston on these issues. They will not understand that.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Everybody who reads the newspaper will understand it.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We are not necessarily conducting our whole business for the benefit of newspapers. I have gone back and read the relevant sections, and I am not quite as definitive as some people in this chamber are as to what Senator Alston meant. What you are basically asking me to do is to go into Senator Alston's mind and tell you what he is thinking. If you have ever seen a nest of snakes existing anywhere, it has to be in Senator Alston's mind.Senator Alston could have been intentionally quite offensive yesterday but, on the other hand, he could have been caught up in some sort of an analogy, and the more he tried to get out of it, the deeper he dug himself in. I just do not know. He does not normally strike me as an intolerant person in terms of his attitude generally. Yes, he is a journeyman abuser, if you like, in terms of this chamber—but who am I to criticise? He often does that.I did not have the benefit, as did some people in this chamber, of being here to see the context of what he said; I can only read what he said. As I say, the jury is out for me. The terminology he used could have been just clumsiness or it may have been intentional offensiveness—I do not know. I have been involved in a lot of political battles in my life, but I am never going to take on this one—to try to probe Senator Alston's mind as to what he is thinking.Maybe the motion that Senator Brown has moved today is just a little too clever by half. I think a little more serious motion would have got the serious attention of the Senate.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Then why didn't you come and speak to me?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am not your keeper, Senator Brown.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You certainly are not!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am certainly not your keeper. I am not your consigliore. I am not your adviser.Opposition senators interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—If you really wished to note it, I was actually elected on a Labor ticket in Victoria. I crushed the Green opponent in that particular year—and now you expect me to come and spoon-feed you. I am sorry, it was not in my self-interest. When it is, I'll be knocking on your door.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—And I'll remember.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That is right—as a skilled political operator, you will remember. Now you are provoking me to go for longer than I wanted!I reiterate: firstly, as we were not present in the chamber, it was hard for us to get the exact meaning of what Senator Alston's intention was just from a reading of what he said. Normally, you would ask for the benefit of the doubt—which is not often offered to him. Secondly, we would have preferred a motion that was more expressive of the sort of philosophy that Senator Brown is espousing and of the very good contribution made by Senator Bartlett here today.Question resolved in the negative.Committees547454745474Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the roles and responsibilities of various bodies in the regulation, design and management of airspace and the decision to terminate the Class G airspace trial be extended to 2 September 1999.Bills5474r6365474Motion (by Senator Allison)—by leave—put:That the amendments circulated by the Government to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 on sheet ER229 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 1999, with particular reference to: (a) whether the amendments would result in an acquisition of property from a person within the meaning of paragraph (xxxi) of section 51 of the Constitution; and(b) alternative options for the regulation of undesirable material in the context of the existing classification scheme for restricted material in publications, films and computer games.16:21:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.58Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Notices547554755475O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—by leave—I give notice that, 15 sitting days hence, I shall move:That the Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 52 and made under the Airports Act 1996, be disallowed.I seek leave to make a short statement about the committee's concerns with this legislation.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—The regulations which establish an infringement notice regime include subjective discretions, a lack of the usual safeguards, an apparent unreasonable time within which an infringement notice must be served and a discretion with no indication of whether it is subject to independent merits review. The committee has written to the minister for advice.Miscellaneous5475Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the `Journey of Healing' which follows on from National Sorry Day 1998 will be visiting the Great Hall of Parliament House on 26 May 1999, and (ii) this journey was initiated at Uluru early in May 1999 when representatives of the stolen generations were `welcomed back' by the traditional owners;(b) condemns past policies and practices which saw indigenous children removed from their families;(c) expresses sincere regret for the grief that these policies and practices caused for so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and children; and(d) calls on the Government to implement all the recommendations contained in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Bringing them home .Committees547554755475Motion (by Senator Gibbs, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia be extended to 28 June 1999.Miscellaneous5475Motion (by Senator Crossin) agreed to:That the Senate notes that:(a) 26 May 1999 is the first anniversary of National Sorry Day;(b) as stated in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Bringing them home , not one indigenous person has escaped the effects of the forced removal policies, and many people expressed sorrow for these policies in 1998; and(c) the National Sorry Day Committee has invited all Australians to join the `Journey of Healing', which offers the whole community the chance to take the next step to heal the consequences of the forced removal policies.Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) supports the national launch in Parliament House of the `Journey of Healing', which marks the first anniversary of National Sorry Day;(b) calls on all Australians to become involved in reconciliation by recognising this as an opportunity to: (i) respect and honour the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, (ii) remember aspects of our past that have been ignored, (iii) assess the progress made in overcoming the harm done, (iv) promote understanding through sharing our own experiences, and (v) recommit ourselves and plan the next steps together; and(c) asks the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to reconsider his attitude to a national apology.Matters of Public Importance5475547510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The President has received a letter from Senator Woodley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The need for the Government to support in a wholehearted way the national launch of the `Journey of Healing' in Parliament House today and to implement all the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Bringing them home .I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.16:31:005476Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I wish to support, obviously, my own matter of public importance motion. I do that because today is a very important day. It is the second anniversary of the handing down of the Bringing them home report and an advance on where we were this time last year when we celebrated National Sorry Day. I must say that the title for today's National Sorry Day commemoration, the Journey of Healing, really encourages me that the Aboriginal people of this country, the indigenous people, are able to move on themselves even if they cannot, at this point in time, take everyone with them. I think it is great that we are not stuck with simply a national sorry day but are able to move, not only in terms of language but also in reality, to a journey of healing. That, I believe, is a journey that all of us should be on in relation to the issue of the indigenous people of this country. I hope that eventually all Australians will be able to join that journey.It is a serious motion and in it I am not just making reference to the Journey of Healing launch in Parliament House today, which was a very impressive ceremony this morning. I think it must have been a great encouragement for those who were there to see the way in which the Aboriginal people of this country, way and above any other group within this community, are able to take their own hurts and to move beyond them. I think we need to commend not only the organisers of that event but also the large number of indigenous people who were present in the Great Hall of Parliament House today for the way in which they accepted the hurts of the past and were prepared to invite all of us to be part of the journey that they are undertaking.I do want to dwell for a little while on the past, because I think that there are those who still deny that in fact this Journey of Healing is necessary, that somehow or other the things that Aboriginal people tell us they are feeling and experiencing did not happen or perhaps are unimportant. What I want to do is place on the record some material that was sent to me by an indigenous person from Western Australia. She gave me permission to use her name: it is Shirley Curnow. In doing research into her own background, she came across some material which really is incredibly disturbing. It was material that was actually sent to the federal government of the day. To read the context of the lives of people who were part of the stolen generation gives us some pause, and I really had to think very carefully whether or not I wanted to put this material on the record in case it was misunderstood, but I think it is worth doing.I think it is worth doing because we need to understand the kinds of attitudes that were present in the 1930s, 1940s and so on but which we hope are no longer present in the 1990s. This is the kind of attitude that Aboriginal people had to deal with. I am not going to use any names, except the name of the Aboriginal person who asked me to do this, because I am not trying to make a party political point; I do, though, want to make a political point. This is actually a resolution of a metropolitan branch of a political party. The resolution is dated 2 August 1934. I will read part of the resolution, passed by a branch of a political party in 1934:That, statements in the Press have been noted to the effect that the Federal Government is bringing to Melbourne from the Northern Territory, a number of Octoroon girls, with the avowed object of mingling them in marriage with the White Community. That, further it is stated that these girls will be secretly domiciled in Melbourne, in order to preclude any knowledge of their ancestry being disclosed.That, it is greatly to be deplored that the Federal Government is so far lost to the knowledge of our deep rooted sentiments and pride of race, as to attempt to infuse a strain of aboriginal blood into our coming generations.That, immediate steps be taken to request the Federal Ministry to reveal the whereabouts of these girls and return them to their districts.That, the Women's Organisations of Australia be urged, that for the race heritage that is held in trust for the generations to come, for the sanctity of our age old traditions, and the protection of our growing boys, to combat with all their power this insidious attempt to mingle with the community, women of illegitimate birth, tainted with aboriginal blood, the offspring of men of the lowest human type, many of whom are Asiatics and other foreign nationalities.I would not have read that into the record if it had not been the resolution of a political party which was then taken seriously, apparently, by the person to whom it was sent, because it was circulated at least through a number of ministers in the federal government of the time.I presume—and I hope, of course—that it was then totally rejected. I was unable to trace the issue any further, but the resolution was printed in a newspaper and I have letters from various federal members indicating that the letter was passed on through the process within the parliament. We cannot deny our history. I could cite many other publications of the time. I could cite, sad to say, because I do not want to dodge my own history, references in church publications that I have researched that fill me with horror when I read them. But this is the kind of community and the kind of attitude that stolen generations had to face within the community in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and perhaps, in some cases, in the 1990s, sad to say.That is why I wanted to put on the record that we want the government—I do not say this in a party political way—to support, in as wholehearted a way as is possible, the attempt by the indigenous people of this country to take us on a journey which recognises our history, which recognises the attitudes within the white community in past decades and which, having recognised that history, then enables us to move beyond it and to move into the reconciliation which so many of us desire. The other part of my resolution about the Bringing them home report has been put in the motion quite deliberately because I believe the government is open to criticism at this point. I am glad the minister is here. I know he is going to speak and I will certainly stay and listen to what he has to say.There was a point to the question I asked the minister the other day, and I thank him for the answer he gave about the court case in Darwin. The problem I have is not with whether the government should defend its position, but with the confusion in the minds of the Aboriginal people that it is the minister's department that is involved in the defence of the government. That is the question they raised with me. The minister may want to address that in what he says.We need to urge the federal government to implement all of the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. I will not repeat all of the things that have been said today by different people but perhaps I will just repeat some of the words of Lowitja O'Donoghue in the Great Hall this morning. She expressed her disappointment with the fact that, despite all of the work that many people have done, we are still not seeing from the federal government the kind of visionary, courageous leadership that we need—these are her words—from the Prime Minister and the government. I will not repeat some of the other things she said but they were very strong and I think they are only appropriate coming from her mouth. (Time expired)16:41:005477Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In his motion, Senator Woodley calls on the government to `support in a wholehearted way the national launch of the Journey of Healing'. I attended part of the launch this morning, as did some of my colleagues—Senator Hill, for example. I want to congratulate Senator Woodley on the quite outstanding speech that he made this morning—I listened carefully to it—and, again, he has made a constructive contribution this afternoon. I too am genuinely pleased to see the name changed from Sorry Day to Journey of Healing because there were many in the community who had difficulty relating to a sorry day.As I mentioned previously in question time, no country can be held hostage to its past. When we erect barriers to resolving those problems of the past by semantics then I think we are digging ourselves holes that we will have difficulty getting out of. There is no question that we need to acknowledge the past, but we cannot change it. We can learn lessons from the past but, far more importantly, we need to look to the future. Senator Woodley quoted from a letter which he received from somebody, and I have tried to reconstruct the past in my own mind. Senator Woodley and I are of the generation that he mentioned of 1934, which is when we were born. We cannot put ourselves into the past. I have read Shades of Darkness by Paul Hasluck, who was around at that time, and it gives a fairly contemporaneous account of the attitudes that existed. I have read Patrol in the Dreamtime, which, similarly, is contemporaneous.I am happy to report to the Senate that the government wholeheartedly supports the reconciliation process. National Reconciliation Week commences tomorrow and the government supports the week's activities. The government is also firmly of the view that the best way to advance reconciliation is to address the disadvantages suffered by many indigenous Australians. All of us at times fall into the trap of saying `the Aboriginals' or `the Torres Strait Islanders' but those communities are as multifaceted as the non-Aboriginal and non-Torres Strait Islander communities. There are many different groups within those societies and you cannot categorise them by saying, `The Aboriginals think so and so,' or, `The Torres Strait Islanders think so and so.' There are equally diverse groups in those communities and it is very easy to fall into that trap when you are not knowledgeable.The recent budget highlights the government's commitment to the practical approach to redressing the wrongs and disadvantages of the past. This year the government has committed a record $2.2 billion to indigenous specific programs, with the main focus on health, employment and education. Recently, I put together some figures on Commonwealth expenditure on indigenous programs and they make interesting reading. In comparative dollar terms, in 1970-71, not that long ago, the Commonwealth spent less than half a million dollars. In 1980-81 spending rose to $150 million. In 1990-91 it was $1.1 billion, and nine short years later it has doubled to $2.2 billion. I am not saying that that is enough or that it is going to redress those disadvantages, because so little was done in the past.More than anything else, those figures confirm the need to urgently address the key areas of disadvantage and that is what this government is doing. Indigenous Australians must have the opportunity to enjoy the lifestyle that so many of us take for granted in this country, and that means improved health, decent housing, equal education and employment opportunities and the right to retain and protect their unique culture. If I see a failing in the community it is the failure to understand the Aboriginal culture and the strengths of that culture which so many of us are unaware of.I do have some problems with the other part of Senator Woodley's motion which calls on the government to implement all the recommendations in the Bringing them home report. I would suggest to Senator Woodley that if he reads that report again—I am sure he has read it—he will see that the majority of the recommendations were not directed at the Commonwealth and therefore cannot be implemented by the Commonwealth. Many of the recommendations are directed at the states and the churches.The 54 recommendations fall into three broad groups. First, the report proposes various forms of reparation and compensation to the individuals removed, their families, communities and descendants. In fact, that is the major part of the things to be done. Second, the report proposes a range of family reunion, health and other services for those affected by past policies and practices. They are the key recommendations of the report and they were the focus of the government's response.Third, the report proposes measures to address contemporary separation practices, in particular legislation to govern adoption, child welfare and juvenile justice procedures. These are properly matters for the states and territories, not the Commonwealth.In developing the government's response, our primary aim was to address the fundamental concern that lies at the heart of this issue—family separation and its consequences. It was this issue that the report itself insisted was the most important of all. In fact the report said:Assisting family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.That is on page 347. This is a view which this government totally embraces without reservation or qualification. It is a value that, in the spirit of reconciliation, should unite all Australians. As well as giving our first priority to measures that will assist separated families to reunite, we have sought to help individuals and families to cope with the emotional and psychological damage that may have been inflicted by previous policies.The government response delivered $63 million in practical assistance over four years. It involved $2 million for Australian Archives to index, copy and preserve thousands of files so that they are more readily accessible; close to $6 million for further development of indigenous family support and parenting programs; $1.6 million to the National Library for an oral history project, in recognition of the importance of indigenous people and others telling their stories of family separation; a $9 million boost to culture and language maintenance programs; $11.25 million to establish a national network of family link-up services to assist individuals, which I alluded to in responding to Senator Harradine today; $16 million for 50 new counsellors to assist those affected by past policies and for those going through the reunion process; and, finally, $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and social wellbeing, giving counsellors professional support and assistance.In response to Senator Woodley's statement about the difficulty of understanding why I should be running that case in the Darwin courts, the facts of the matter are that the previous government established ATSIC as an entity to be advisory to the government on indigenous affairs, but in establishing it put that department of ATSIC in an extremely difficult position. On the one hand, it was to advise government on indigenous affairs and, on the other hand, it had to carry out government policy. Often the two were quite at opposite ends of the spectrum, as is evidenced in the debate that occurred in relation to the Mabo decision. It is difficult to understand how that should be so and I can only say that it is a result of past history.I am also aware that there were calls today for an apology, accompanied by claims that if one had been offered there would be no compensation claims. That is somewhat at odds with the facts. The first compensation claims were lodged during the Keating government years before there were calls for an apology. The current wave of claims were lodged in 1996, over six months before the Bringing them home report and its call for an apology.As I mentioned in question time, I am saddened that some have sought to use the Journey of Healing Day in a divisive manner. The government has consistently made its position clear on the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. Like Senator Woodley, I would like to refer the Senate to a letter to the editor in the Age today from an Aboriginal woman, Val Bray. I have not sought her permission but it is a public document and I have no difficulty in reading from it. The letter says:This being National Reconciliation Week, I personally would like to say thank you to my fellow Australians for your support and goodwill. To share with you as an indigenous Australian my thoughts and experiences.It is now 32 years (May `67) since the referendum and I am constantly gladdened by the opportunities that the yes vote opened up for me.Like most indigenous Australians I know, I have a humble and at times sad past. This continues to create psychological barriers. I am, at times too conscious of how I think you perceive me. In most instances speaking openly about my heritage gives me your support and understanding. I very much welcome your interest and enjoy sharing my story with you and listening to yours. I do not think your lack of knowledge is based on ignorance or bigotry as from experience I know you might think I would.Please don't feel guilty or embarrassed about this. I understand that many of you would not have the opportunity to meet indigenous Australians. Our Council for Reconciliation could help.Do you remember the pride you felt at being an Australian when Lionel Rose won his boxing title in Japan? When Cathy Freeman ran that wonderful race in Atlanta? Well, my dear fellow Australians, please share that same pride in the progress of indigenous Australians with me. We have indigenous graduates in most professions and may I say I am especially proud of those older people who, with very little formal education, have gone back to school and successfully completed studies.Mr Acting Deputy President, I am running out of time. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of that letter in Hansard . Leave granted.The remainder of the letter read as follows—There is a growing indigenous business ownership sector, increasing levels of home ownership.I know, as you do, there is still a lot to be done. However, our combined efforts and with your continuing goodwill, we will get there. After all, our track record is pretty impressive. In just 32 years, we have achieved so much.When I'm out in the bush working with the bees and just listening to the sounds of silence, I often muse about my ancestors. As a honey gatherer, my ancient heritage is a great solace to me when it's especially been a tough year on the land. I think that if my forebears survived all those thousands of different seasons, I can survive one or two.I am so very proud of my ancient heritage and I would like you to share that pride with me.My best wishes to you all.Val Bray, Redbank16:51:005480Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I welcome the fact that we are having a constructive debate this afternoon. Some very worthwhile statements have been made in this debate. I think the Journey of Healing is an opportunity even for people on opposite sides of this chamber to move forward. We have just seen the passage of three resolutions in this place supporting the Journey of Healing. One of those resolutions included another request for the Prime Minister to reconsider his position on a national apology. I would like to go a little further than that resolution and make a suggestion to the Prime Minister that perhaps he would find easier to start with than a full national apology, although that would be my ultimate goal. Since the report on the stolen generations was brought down two years ago, I would concede that some efforts from this government and from state governments have been made to implement some of the recommendations, but the process is far too slow and far too ad hoc. I will go through that in a moment. One of the problems it seems to me, Senator Herron—and you are in the hot seat, because everybody thinks you can just wave a magic wand and implement all the recommendations—is that you have to deal with so many governments. But I would argue that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide that leadership and coordination role. I would call on you to take to the Prime Minister as a genuine suggestion that a special Premiers Conference—together with Aboriginal affairs ministers, obviously—be called at a practicable date to try to develop some plan of action that would coordinate the implementation of all recommendations. Clearly, certain states are taking certain actions and, as you have detailed, the federal government has taken action in some areas and has committed a certain amount of resources, which is very welcome.The Prime Minister announced—I would think as a result of the considerable efforts of Peter Nugent, the representative in the other place—that the stolen generation trust fund, of which Peter Nugent was an initial trustee, would have tax deductibility status. Before I sound too much as if I am speaking for this government, which would be a bit of a worry even in the best spirit of reconciliation, I say to Senator Herron that a special Premiers Conference would bring together all players and would give the commitment from the Prime Minister down to all premiers and all ministers responsible for indigenous policy.I think it is tremendously important that something like this occur as soon as practicable, because whether we like it or not the international focus is going to be on Australia during the Olympic Games. That is not the only reason to do this; it should be done purely because of the social justice need. But Australia is developing a negative reputation for reasons I will not go into here in a spirit of bipartisanship. I ask you to take this to the Prime Minister as a constructive suggestion. Last year the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission commissioned a follow-up project to find out what progress was being made in the implementation of the Bringing them home report. This implementation progress report was prepared by Dr David Kinley. I am hoping I will have time to just go through the summary of governments' responses to recommendations. I emphasise that it is `governments'; it is all governments—federal, state and territory. The status of governments' responses to the recommendations were as follows: recording testimonies—there has been no determination; procedure for implementation, COAG working party—not implemented; procedure for implementation, establish audit unit—not implemented; procedure for implementation, ATSIC funding of peak indigenous organisations—not implemented; and procedure for implementation, reporting obligations to audit unit—not implemented.The status of other recommendations included: components of reparations—need to apologise, no support for monetary compensation, a watching brief; claimants—reparation for those who suffered—the same; acknowledgment and apology—all except the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory; acknowledgment and apology by police forces—only in New South Wales; and acknowledgment and apology from churches and others—all churches have done so. The summary says that commemoration of Sorry Day should be marked but it is undecided whether it should be annual. Of course, the Journey of Healing is how we are marking it in 1999. It says that commemoration, local and regional, is in progress.Other recommendations were as follows: school education—indigenous issues courses are compulsory only in New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia; school education—AIATSIS, not implemented; professional training, professional bodies—no national action and considered best left to peak bodies themselves; professional training for undergraduates—already instituted in some jurisdictions but it is up to the tertiary institutions to decide; and implementation of genocide convention—not implemented, as the Commonwealth claims no genocide occurred, therefore there is no need to implement the convention. And so it goes on.In the interests of time I will seek leave to table this summary of the recommendations because I think it highlights the problem we all have. Poor Senator Herron is the person who is supposed to somehow coordinate all this, but it is a task for all of us. Unless we get the governments together under the Prime Minister's leadership, I can see this adhocery continuing. Yes, there are philosophical issues about which we disagree but, as a starting point, I think a special Premiers Conference should be convened to try to coordinate the responses. Therefore, I seek leave to table the document. I have asked the whip previously.Leave granted.XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—I thank the Senate. In conclusion, I urge the minister in the chamber to consider this as a genuine, constructive suggestion on the Journey of Healing.16:59:005481Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to make a few comments today but, firstly, I need to express an opinion in relation to some of the comments made by Senator Herron. Senator Herron said we cannot be held hostage to the past. In the ceremony today in the Great Hall, there was a recognition, certainly amongst those who attended, that all indigenous people in some way or other have been affected by the stolen generation. The stolen generation report exposed a compendium of problems of mental health issues, substance abuse, in some instances suicide, and sexual abuse. The long-term and intergenerational effects of all or most of those impact upon human beings and parenting. Thank goodness that in many cases there are supportive communities in many indigenous societies who try to assist when individual parents, through the intergenerational effects of the stolen generation, have not been able to cope in their normal lives.It is not an issue of the past when we know that so many people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent in Australia are still experiencing those problems. The issue is about moving on, but it is also about taking those steps. Healing requires action. As has been pointed out to me by Aboriginal friends in Western Australia, it is not a matter of attending a meeting where Aboriginal people share their intimate stories, everybody has a cry and then it is all over. That is not what I believe the healing is about. That might be a first step of information, but the healing is about the action that is necessary. What are people going to do from now on? If we now can recognise that institutionalised repeated damage took place, what do we do from now? The action is not just about throwing money at particular problems; the action is about walking towards a justice. That requires us to recognise what the issues are and to realise that it is about land justice, it is about basic human rights and it is about opening our eyes to what we are being told.Therefore, it is an acknowledgment that it is not just in the past—it is not about a black armband view of history—and it is about acknowledging that these actions took place and in some instances are still taking place. It is about acknowledging that we all have to take action to move forward. This is not something that will take place overnight. The healing cannot take place overnight, in one week, one day or one year. The healing may also take generations. It will not simply be ceremonies, although those ceremonies are important. It is a matter of public acknowledgment, it is a matter of working through the issues—the recommendations are a very good starting point—and then it is a matter of taking action not just for the past but for the present and the future.17:03:005482Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Senator Woodley has today called on the government to support in a wholehearted way our indigenous people in their Journey of Healing. Members of the government have listened to Senator Woodley's call on behalf of indigenous individuals and their communities. I also have been listening to Aboriginal people. Indigenous women in South Australia have over recent times shared with me some absolutely heartbreaking experiences in relation to their own childhoods and family connections which we in this place who have had a secure and loving family and childhood could simply never fully understand.These stories, which were so trustingly shared with me during my meetings in Adelaide and regional South Australia, were not told to me to seek some special preference or even particularly to engender sympathy from others. These women were simply telling me their personal starting points in our discussions about their particular priorities for their lives and for their families and especially for their children and grandchildren.Those priorities were really no different from the priorities shared by thousands of Australian families. These women, like all of us, want to raise and nurture strong and healthy children and grandchildren. They want to break the devastating cycle of family violence and welfare dependency. They know that for young people the value of working gives them the opportunity for an education and a chance to build the foundation for success in their lives.These goals are shared by this government. We are implementing the policies which will achieve real outcomes for indigenous families. Senator Margetts said just a few minutes ago that it is not just about throwing money at a problem; it is about working for outcomes and trying to achieve what these people themselves have identified as priorities.As the minister announced just yesterday, a new Indigenous Employment Program is being established, with particular emphasis on private sector opportunities so that indigenous people can get jobs. In 1999-2000 an extra $25 million will be spent on indigenous employment. The total expenditure on IEP in 1999-2000 will be $52 million, including $2 million for small business projects. Just last Friday, a round table delegate in rural South Australia, who did not know that this project was about to be released but who had an amazing sense of prescience about it, said to me, `What I want to give my children'—and she had seven grandchildren living with her—`is real jobs and not just more sit-down money.'Those women and all indigenous communities want strong children to build strong communities and not be crippled by the self-destructive cycle of unemployment. These were her words; they were not my words. But I listened very carefully to what she had to say because those are the priorities that all of us should be listening to.Can I say that a resolution to conflict and family violence is fundamental; it is a cornerstone to improving family life everywhere in Australia. I have heard some quite horrific stories over the last few months of family violence which, I have to say, send a shiver down my spine. Our family homes should be safe havens, not battlegrounds. Our government is determined to address the issue of family violence and has asked ATSIC to allocate additional resources to encourage practical, community based initiatives, including $17 million each year to combat substance abuse by indigenous people. That program could not have a higher priority with the indigenous women that I have spoken to. There is also another $2.8 million for family violence projects for advocacy, training and rural and remote awareness campaigns.I just wish that more people in this chamber could have sat around the table and listened to some of the stories of those women, and how they have overcome some quite horrific things in their lives and in their homes to come out in the open and share and trust with other people in a way they know will lead them forward. It does not revisit the life they want to forget. They have shown, I think very ably, their ability and willingness to accept responsibility for the management of programs affecting them. They have also made it very clear that they want to break through the cycle of welfare dependency, and a number of them have said so publicly.Our government fully supports their aim of achieving economic independence, and meas ures in the 1999-2000 budget will continue that support. Never before has a government made so much funding available for programs for our indigenous people. The government will continue to pursue a strong agenda promoting rational allocation of resources in indigenous affairs and a coordinated effort with the states and territories, with clear outcomes and accountability focus in all expenditure in mind. Senator Woodley, we do care about indigenous people, we are aware of the difficulties in their communities and we are, I would argue, working with the communities themselves towards a resolution of some of these issues of great importance that we all share.17:09:005483Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Twelve months ago today, on 26 May, National Sorry Day, many Australians expressed their sorrow for policies which forcibly removed countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Today, on the first anniversary of Sorry Day, we see the launch of the Journey of Healing. The Journey of Healing is not a matter of personal guilt or blame, rather it is a matter of healing wounds by embracing rather than shunning our history. As Sir William Deane said, `Where there is no room for national pride or shame, there can be no national soul.'The badge that I am wearing is symbolic of the Journey of Healing, and it represents indigenous and non-indigenous Australians looking together to the sun, expressing hope that a better future can be created. On 5 May this year I had the honour and privilege to attend a very moving ceremony at the Mutitjulu community at Uluru in the Northern Territory to launch the Journey of Healing. I was the only member of federal parliament present at that ceremony. At the launch of the Journey of Healing, elders of the Mutitjulu community handed over message sticks to members of the stolen generations from every state and territory.There was a lot of sadness expressed on that day as members of the stolen generation, one by one, told their stories about people who had been taken away from their families. It was an important opportunity for them to tell their stories, it was important for us in the crowd to cry with them and it was important for them to explain how losing their culture and language had affected them. The day culminated in the launch of the song the Journey of Healing, which was reproduced and sung again today in the Great Hall. While it was a very moving experience, there was a lot of hope expressed for the future for those individuals directly affected by the policies of separation and for the reconciliation process between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.In the afternoon, the traditional owners of Mutitjulu spent some time with those members of the stolen generation who had spent many hours in the morning telling of how one of the saddest experiences they had had during the process of being removed from their families was that they had lost contact with their language and culture, that they had lost the connection with the land that they could see so many of the people in front of them had maintained. So it was quite moving to see the traditional owners of that community invite the members of the stolen generation to join them to relearn and to reconnect with their culture and language.I attended the launch on behalf of the opposition leader, Kim Beazley, and I presented a message to those people on his behalf. In that message he said:We cannot ignore or deny the fact that the history of this country since European settlement, for all that we have achieved, has many shameful chapters.The dispossession of indigenous Australians, the dismissive degradation of indigenous culture and the splitting up of indigenous families was not always done with malice . . . was often done in ignorance, but was always wrong.. . . . . . . . .Indigenous heritage is at the heart of our shared heritage. None of us can change the past, but we can all share in shaping the future.Malcolm Fraser, who is joint patron of the National Sorry Day Committee along with Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, said:Here in Australia, we could overcome the misunderstandings and mistrust which bedevil relationships between our first peoples and the wider community, and replace these attitudes with respect and appreciation.If this is to happen, Federal, State and local government have a vital role to play; but so does every Australian.That Journey of Healing is being launched around the country, and this morning the Journey of Healing celebration in the Great Hall of parliament was a tremendous occasion. The music sticks from the Mutitjulu community were presented to the Ngunnawal elders here in Canberra. As a member of the Australian parliament representing the Northern Territory, I am saddened by the continual refusal by both the Australian government and the Northern Territory government to say those few vital words which mean so much to those Aboriginal people separated from their families and culture.The New South Wales Premier apologised on behalf of his government in 1996 and yesterday the Premier of Queensland apologised on behalf of the Queensland government for the policies. I note the recent comments made by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, who is reported to have admitted feeling discouraged and even depressed about the slow progress of reconciliation under the coalition government. I know what he means. But while an apology would go a long way in helping the reconciliation and healing process, words alone are not sufficient. On this day of healing I and, I am sure, the overwhelming majority of Australians would like to hear what progress the federal government has made in implementing the 54 recommendations of the Bringing them home report.Anybody who has heard the stories or who has spoken to Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families and culture cannot be anything but moved by their pain and sorrow or their suffering. Today, on the Journey of Healing, I call on the federal government to give its full commitment to the process of reconciliation and healing. Australian people do not want to simply hear the government's soulless rhetoric or about the money it has spent. They want to see concrete actions of reconciliation and they want to see reconciliation reflected in this government's policies. Gatjil Djerrkura has said that recon ciliation is all about what you do for past events: it is not about just word of mouth; it is what you do for those affected people.In finishing, I turn to a number of recommendations in the report that go to the apology. I make a plea to the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to reconsider their attitude to an apology. I say this to them: just say `sorry' and move on.17:17:005485Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Today is a very important day for us all. It is the beginning of the Journey of Healing. I am sure that most Australians feel that we do owe a debt to the Aboriginal people of Australia to ensure that they participate in our modern community and that the disadvantages which they still continue to suffer are redressed. I am sure there would not be a person in this country who would not want to see the problems which exist in Aboriginal health overcome and who would not want to see Aborigines receiving better education, acquiring job skills and overcoming the social problems, which Senator Ferris referred to, in terms of abuse within families, alcoholism, neglect of children and so on. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Aboriginal problems. Those of us who have lived in areas where there are a number of Aborigines in the population—and I have; I lived in the north-west of Western Australia for some 22 years—know that the problems are complex and there are no quick, easy solutions.In the north-west of Western Australia, perhaps more than in many other parts of the country, there is a great deal of racial tolerance, especially in the Kimberley. The Aborigines there are accepted very much as part of the community, as no doubt they are in the Northern Territory. But in the background there were dark incidents, like the Oombulguri massacre at the settlement north of Wyndham on the Forrest River. That did not occur all that long ago—in fact, in the early part of this century. So there are dark events and dark memories which govern to some extent, even today, the views of people about Aboriginal issues and of Aborigines towards the rest of the community. However, it is important that we recognise that we cannot live in the past. Time has moved on and here we are very close to the end of this century and the turning of the millennium.In the Kimberley the Aborigines have, in many ways, fitted in to the modern community very well. The president of the shire of Falls Creek, for example, is an Aboriginal woman. Having a woman shire president in the Kimberley is an event in itself, much less an Aboriginal woman. There are two Aboriginals on the Port Hedland town council and, in Broome, Aborigines are very much part of the community.It is my view, based on my experience in the north-west of Western Australia, that the most important step towards achieving reconciliation involving Aborigines in our modern community is education. Simple literacy opens the door to the world for Aborigines. A lot of the disadvantage that Aborigines suffer in the modern world is related to the fact that the Aborigines who left the stations in the 1940s were not educated. They came into the towns without education and without job skills and they were a lost generation. But today young Aboriginals are going through the school system; they are literate, and that makes a huge difference.There is a college in South Hedland called Pundulmurra which provides education for Aboriginal kids and older Aboriginal youth. It provides them with not only basic general education but also social education. They are taught basic things such as how to open a bank account, what to do when going to the post office and so on. At the other end of the scale it provides pre-apprenticeship training to high school graduates so they can go into BHP and become apprentices there and in due course become electricians, plumbers, boilermakers and so on. With those trade skills, these people are able to fit into the community, as many Aborigines do in the towns of the north of Western Australia.The other important area which we have to address in terms of Aboriginal progress and reconciliation is overcoming the poor health record which exists. Aborigines still have a much worse health record than that of the rest of the community. The federal government is devoting a lot of money to improving that health record.Senator Woodley referred to the stolen generation story. While most of the stories we hear about that are bad, it was not all bad, as Senator Crossin acknowledged. For example, I know a man called Cedric Wyatt—he was the head of the Western Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs until recently and is now the mayor of the town of Cue—who says that if he had not been taken away and educated he would be just another drunk on the streets of Meekatharra today. We have to recognise that what was done in those days in many cases was not done out of malice. It was done because it was thought to be the right thing to do. We know now that it was not, and we need to institute and support programs to ensure that Aborigines no longer suffer disadvantage. (Time expired)17:22:005486Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak in this debate and to support the matter of public importance put forward by Senator Woodley. In doing so, can I commend him, not just on bringing this matter forward today but also on his speech to the Sorry Day commemoration in the Great Hall a few hours ago. It was an impressive speech. It was also an extremely impressive function. I was at the commemoration last year and I was there again today, and what struck me was that it seemed there were four or five times the number of people there today than there were last year. I also got the impression of diversity in the crowd this time, as opposed to last time.This Sorry Day quest for a reconciliation through an apology is one that I think will not go away and one that governments and prime ministers will have to contend with in the future. The fact that the current Prime Minister is not agreeing to apologise on behalf of the nation, when other leaders within Australia and other leaders internationally have done so for similar sorts of conduct, is a blot on our current history. But I have a firm conviction that probably any other prime minister in the last 20 years or so ago would have done the decent thing and I anticipate that any person who holds the position in the future, whether it is from the Labor or the Liberal side of politics, will be able to do what this Prime Minister cannot do. It is an important thing to do. It would lay the foundations for so much further action that would not just bring black and white Australians together, but would also go down the road towards redressing some of the problems of those communities.Malcolm Fraser just a few weeks ago put it quite succinctly when, in respect to Sorry Day and a call for reconciliation, he said,Unless non-Aboriginal Australians are prepared to look at the past openly and honestly, there will be no real and effective reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians.My tendering of `sorry' is not just for the past behaviour. I am also sorry for the present behaviour that leadership in this country is indulging in. An apology is one thing, but what concerns me most is that we have a deliberate policy on a national level to divide and, through division, to basically conquer those with aspirations on the indigenous side of the community and also those on the non-indigenous side.We have had the Bringing them home report. We have had a report with some 54 fundamental recommendations. But we heard in question time today, in response to a question from Senator Harradine, that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs had really no idea as to the fundamental underlying problems identified in that report and the fundamental directions that we need to take.We should not underestimate what we have done in history as a nation. I think probably the most powerful thing we did to indigenous Australians was to destroy their dignity and self-pride, and that is one thing that a race or culture really cannot reacquire very easily. We devastated families, communities and cultures and we separated people from the land. But the most telling thing we did to indigenous Australians, to the first Australians, was to destroy their dignity and their self-pride. And so much of that HREOC report reveals the experience and what needs to be done to repair the damage of that time.Let us not think that there is no responsibility on us now to repair that damage. We do not need to do it just for indigenous Australians and we do not need to do it just for our consciences, but we also need to do it because we want to live in a cohesive society, where race divisions are minimised. We compound our sins by ignoring the past and we compound them by ignoring the present. The number of Aboriginal youth in custody is great testimony to the damage that we did to them and their families. If we believe that family life is integral and fundamental to a cohesive society, then we must acknowledge the damage which is continuing because of the disruption of just about every Aboriginal family in this country. We compound that felony by basically subjecting this policy area to continued political division.There is a strategy in this country to divide the poor blacks from the poor whites, to the disadvantage of both. We isolate indigenous Australians, we do make them political targets and we should not. We should not do so not only because of the negative impact it has on them but also because of the negative impact it has on our reputation as a nation. It is a strategy where you feed the ignorance and you feed those who do not have enough information. It is a deliberate strategy to divide, as I say, poor blacks from poor whites, to the disadvantage of both.We can no longer tolerate a prime minister who hides behind this excuse of not believing in a black armband for your history, when history so often shows that we do have a lot to make up for. The former Prime Minister Fraser is also on the record as saying:An apology is recognition, above all, that something wrong was done, and we regret that it happened. It is perhaps the most important thing we can do which is within our powers to address the matters of the spirit. There will never be reconciliation with Aboriginal people and other Australians unless we understand that there are both material and spiritual issues involved.That is something that I think Senator Woodley understands full well, it is something that people on this side and a lot of people on the other side understand full well, but it is something that the Prime Minister obviously cannot understand because he cannot be brought to the barrier to say the right thing.Senator Patterson interjecting—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I think there is a challenge to the Prime Minister, provoked as I am by interjections. The challenge to him is to do what other Australians have done—to read the report, to go through it and then to see whether, having read that report, he has the same attitude as he has now.I just do not believe that any sensitive human being can actually go through the process of reading that particular report and then take the same position. There is, I think, an obligation and responsibility on this parliament to keep on raising this issue and to keep on driving for an apology and for reconciliation. Lois O'Donoghue said this morning that she was concerned about the fuelling of the fires of division because, if for no other reason, it puts indigenous Australians under more stress and that is one thing we should not be doing. I commend the matter of public importance to the Senate. I think it is a matter of urgency because, unless we acknowledge that we have only got 12 months to get our backyard in order, the eyes of the rest of world will be looking at us. This issue if it is unresolved will not present a good picture.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded.Documents54875487548710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the Auditor-General's report No. 42 of 1998-99: Performance audit—The establishment and operation of Green Corps .5487Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report is important—it is the performance audit of the establishment and operation of the Green Corps, from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It is worth noting because it is an audit of the way that the system has been operating. It is important to mention that the Australian National Audit Office can do a lot, but what it cannot do is judge the Green Corps within the context of what it replaced. In this instance, what it replaced was the LEAP scheme. The LEAP scheme may not have been perfect, but it was actually community driven, which is a bit different from the way the Green Corps operates.The Green Corps is also cheaper. I think 3,000 people were part of the Green Corps last year. The LEAP scheme in 1994-95 involved 14,930 people and in 1995-96 it involved 13,000 people. The costs in those years were $93.7 million and $89 million respectively. In comparison, the government invested $41.7 million over three years in the Green Corps and, of course, that averages out at something like $13.9 million per year. So, in fact, instead of increasing their commitment to training and community environmental projects, the government has decreased their commitment.The Auditor-General's report indicates that DETYA assessed compliance with some areas of the 1996 contract and not with others. Because the assessment was therefore not comprehensive, DETYA did not have the assurance that the contract was performing satisfactorily in relation to the contents of project proposals and the timely notification of trainee withdrawals, and not all performance information collected—information contained in end of project reports, for example—was analysed and used to monitor and/or improve program performance.So there are still some areas to be improved even within the scope of the Green Corps. I want to put on record that it is unfortunate that the community have lost some of the driving force of this program, involved with environment and employment creation. Word of mouth feedback that I have received is that the Green Corps has much less of an integrated training component than existed under the LEAP program. So there is little doubt as to why it costs less; it probably contains less as well. Unfortunately, it is reaching less people and perhaps providing less useful outcomes for the community.Whilst the government made a big statement about the Green Corps, unfortunately it still has not produced the results of the scheme it replaced. I think that is something the government ought to be looking into in the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees54885488548817:35:005488O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the ninth report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 8 of 1999, dated 26 May 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills5488r7755488Debate resumed.17:36:005488Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—When the Senate broke for lunch, I was talking about the role and independence of the Australian Communications Authority. The main reason the government has given for this bill is certainty. The process was clear and the process was certain. The Australian Communications Authority had already indicated that their audit role had come up with an appropriate figure for the universal service obligation cost for 1997 of between $425 million and $600 million. The ACA have also indicated that their assessment will be complete by the end of June.The current process is a reasonable balance between industry certainty, transparency and fulfilment of the USO for a reasonable price. It provides a much fairer and more reasonable situation than this arbitrary cap. The cap is the ultimate blunt instrument in telecommunications policy. The cap proposed by this legislation completely undermines this process and the independence and credibility of the ACA. Is this the thin edge of the wedge for the continued legitimacy and role of the ACA—that is, those roles which have not been taken over by the Australian Competi tion and Consumer Commission in relation to telecommunications?Let us look at the costing process. The third exceptionally inconsistent aspect of this bill is that the government engaged consultants to develop a fully documented and operational costing model. Bellcore International created the new Bellcore model for Telstra to submit, it claimed, to the ACA. Based on this model, Telstra costed their NUSC at $1.8 billion for 1997-98, compared with the previous year's cost of $252 million. Whilst the change in the model for calculating the costs of the NUSC was likely to result in changes, the 1997-98 claim by Telstra does seem outrageous. This could mean one of two things: either Telstra has misused an appropriate model and put in an ambit claim, or the model is problematic itself. In either case, a cap is an inappropriate or blunt instrument. The government has spent a significant amount of money developing this model and now it is effectively casting it into the wilderness for at least another two years. The government is not attempting to fix the model or allow the checks and balances provided by the ACA's auditing process to put a damper on Telstra's ambit claim.The final major inconsistency is that the cap flies in the face of the very objective of the universal service obligation. There are two issues here: the first is whether the cap is reflective of the true universal service cost, and the second is whether the cap adequately compensates the universal service provider for the cost of the universal service obligation. Firstly, the Greens are concerned that, if the cap does not represent the true cost of the NUSC, this may put downward pressure on the provision of services and technologies by the universal service provider.Considering that the universal service obligation is aimed at regions where it does not make economic sense to provide certain services and technologies, there are no competitive pressures on Telstra or any other potential universal service provider to keep services or technologies up to scratch. In addition, while the universal service provider must provide a universal service plan to the minister, there are no penalties in the Tele communications Act for failure to meet aspects of the plan. As noted in the government's own committee report, the Telecommunications Act language creates some leeway in judgments about whether the USO plan has been adequately fulfilled.The bottom line in relation to the USO and the provisions of the USO should not be industry certainty. While certainty for industry is not an irrelevant consideration for telecommunications regulations, the prime objective of the universal service obligation is to ensure an acceptable quality and range of telecommunications services in all parts of Australia and for all different types of Australians. It is widely acknowledged that a certain level of access to telecommunications facilities is essential for everyone—a basic necessity of life—and the government has acknowledged this in providing a universal service obligation. Thus the universal service cap should reflect the very basis of the universal service obligation. It should be primarily focused on ensuring that cost containment measures do not affect the intent of the USO or the standard telephone service. The USO would obviously be a beast with no teeth if there were a lack of available funds to provide a service of acceptable equivalent quality for all Australians.The Greens are also supportive of an extension to the USO and standard telephone definition. This is especially important as technology improves at such a speedy rate. Setting a cap implicitly suggests that the government's intention is to retain the current USO and standard telephone service despite technological improvements and despite the increased needs of many people in the community. While the cap is theoretically for only two more years, we all know how quickly technology is expanding and changing and we all know how quickly governments use decisions of the past to justify decisions of the future when it suits them.In light of these concerns, we believe that the Telecommunications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 is not good enough. In effect, we believe that it may be counterproductive and create problems for the future. Therefore, the Greens (WA) will not be supporting this bill at the second reading stage.17:42:005490Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The government's bill to cap the universal service obligation at $253 million comes as a response to Telstra's 1997-98 claim of $1.8 billion. It is understandable that the industry reacted strongly to this claim as it represented a sevenfold increase on an earlier sum negotiated between the carriers.Coming as it did on the eve of the Cable and Wireless Optus float, it also posed a very immediate problem for that company and for those who had put together its prospectus. This, as I understand it, had given no indication that the USO costs for 1997-98 could rise significantly and, while warning of the risks associated with the 1999 claim, had stated that Optus believed that the USO costing model developed by the Australian Communications Authority would result in a `reduction' in the calculation of the USO costs. It would be very interesting to know what that assessment was originally based on. On the eve of the float, it was quite apparent that a predictable outcome would follow.The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts moved very quickly last year to assure the industry that it would not have to face any steep increases to the USO payments, whatever the actual size the USO costs might be. The result, of course, is the legislation currently before the parliament. Labor appreciates the need for certainty in the industry and, on that basis, will support the bill to cap the USO costs for a total period of three years.It should be noted that this way of addressing the issue leaves a lot of questions unanswered. First of all, there is the question of the actual cost of delivering the USO. The ACA has now received a number of consultants' reports on the 1997-98 figure. These indicate that the cost would be somewhere between $400 million and $650 million. If these figures are accepted by the ACA, it would mean that Telstra would be significantly undercompensated for the USO, not only for 1997 but for the two following years. This position was tacitly acknowledged by the minister in the second reading speech when he asserted that, even if Telstra were undercompensated for the USO, it had broad shoulders and that such action would have little impact on its bottom line. In my view, such an attitude fails to acknowledge that the poor levels of service in regional and rural areas are a direct result of Telstra's cost cutting and its bid to drive up the shareholder value by reducing labour costs. It is very much part of the privatisation process. This is how Telstra has been able to absorb the unpaid USO costs without affecting its financial performance.The measurement of the cost of the USO has been a matter of contention for about 10 years, as far as I can tell, and possibly longer. In 1989 the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics undertook a study of the cost of Telecom's CSOs in the context of corporatisation. The study produced two estimates of these costs: $230 million per annum, using an avoidable cost methodology; and $800 million per annum, using a fully distributed cost approach. These two figures were produced using the same basic data and the same cost of capital. It indicates how widely cost estimates can vary, depending on the approach that is taken.While Telecom—as it was until 1991—remained a monopoly provider, these debates were always somewhat academic. It was only with the introduction of carrier competition under the Telecommunications Act 1991 that the scale of these costs became a major issue of public policy. As the new market entrants targeted the traditional source of USO funding—that is, the high marginal arrangements that were made with STD and IDD traffic—the recovery of equitable contributions to the USO from all industry participants became an imperative not only to ensure some degree of competitive parity between the companies but also to guarantee the long-term viability of the USO regime itself.The Telecommunications Act 1991 adopted the avoidable cost methodology for calculating the USO which had been developed by the BTCE. When Telstra's first claim was submitted to Austel in July 1993, no ready agreement could be reached between the carriers. This claim, which was for the 1992-93 year, was not settled until April 1994. The fact that this figure was exactly the same as that which was calculated by the BTCE some six years earlier suggests to me a degree of pragmatism in the way in which these figures were derived.Optus, Telstra, Vodafone and Austel began to work on addressing the problems that had been identified in the current costing methods and in September 1996 entered into a contract with Bellcore International to develop a new computing model for calculating the net universal service costs, starting with those for the financial year 1997-98. This model has been used by Telstra to generate its claim for $1.8 billion. However, stability should not be conferred as giving any legitimacy to the figures earlier cited and used throughout the industry. To my mind, the static nature of the USO figure points to its very artificiality.Given the formula for estimating these costs—that is, the avoidable cost minus revenue forgone—it is highly unlikely that they would have remained fixed over any significant period of time, especially in a competitive market. The matter is currently before the Australian Communications Authority—the body that is allegedly charged under the Telecommunications Act 1997 with addressing Telstra's claim. By fixing the net universal service cost at what can be nothing other than an arbitrary level for three years, the government has signalled that it is more concerned with the ongoing viability of the companies than with the real costs of meeting the social objectives of the act.Lastly, by pre-empting the findings of the ACA, the government undermines the authority and independence of the body in a key policy area. It is unfortunate that this is not the first example of the government making policy by fiat, outside the framework established by the Telecommunications Act 1997. There is good cause to be concerned about the way in which Telstra and the industry have approached this particular problem. No satisfaction is to be found in the ad hoc decision making that the government has now adopted in response to the political pressure that has been placed upon it by the various carriers in the industry.In my judgment, consumers are best served by a regime which favours all the industry participants and allows them to contribute on an equitable basis to the cost of providing uneconomic services. That means, if you are genuinely serious about a competitive model, you make sure that all players are obliged to contribute to the cost of providing services, particularly in rural and regional areas. It is quite obvious that persistent undercompensation of the universal service provider on the basis of net costs incurs pressures that will inevitably have to be faced by consumers in terms of the effect that such pressures will have on quality and accessibility. Telstra is unlikely to go broke in this process. We all understand that. If Telstra's present performance continues, we will see continuing pressure on the level of service that is provided. Also, the government will be faced with the inevitable political contradiction that arises from the notion that it does not apply the same standards to the private sector as it applies to the public sector.There is a contradiction in the government's approach to the USO itself. It says that it believes in the privatisation of Telstra and that the privatisation of Telstra will make no difference to the way in which the USO is delivered. However, when it is faced with rebellion from the private carriers over their claimed capacity to meet the USO payment, the government simply agrees that the public sector will have to pick up the tab. With Telstra obliged to pick up the tab, services will inevitably suffer as a consequence of the actions being undertaken, particularly with regard to the competitive pressures placed on Telstra in this current market. What would the regime be if Telstra were fully privatised? I cannot see a circumstance where a government—particularly a government of this type—would be asking a privately owned company to absorb the losses that are inevitably incurred in the provision of universal service obligations.We have this notion that the problem will be solved by competitive tendering of the USO, which, it is said, will reduce the bill. Anyone tendering for the nationwide USO now knows that, for the financial year 1999-2000, you would have to come up with a figure somewhat under $250 million. I am looking forward to all of these great private providers coming up with a model that says they can meet the universal service obligation for $253 million a year. I am looking forward to them actually delivering such a proposition in real terms rather than in the empty political rhetoric we have heard today.What we can expect to see is various loss making services being excluded from the USO as time goes on. The government intends to prescribe the digital service, a data service and so on as part of the USO, but it has not indicated whether it intends to regulate the pricing of that service. It has not indicated who will be the provider of that service if the loss continues in some areas. I am sure this great mystery will unfold before us and be explained in some detail when the government responds in this debate.Private industry are saying that they cannot pay, but what they are really saying is that they will not pay. We can be sure that, when Telstra is asked to pick up the tab for the subsidies that are being provided to the private sector in this regard, eventually rural and regional Australia will have to meet the price through a reduction in services and in the quality of services provided.When we have a bill before us that considers the cost of delivering the USO, I think we ought to see a regime that genuinely shares around the industry the costs that should be attributed to both the public and the private sectors in terms of telecommunications. Firms should be obliged to make a full contribution towards meeting the social costs of the policies associated with telecommunications. They should not be able to rely upon the public sector to give them a free kick by providing them with subsidies to sustain the profitable aspects of their enterprise.Throughout this debate it has been apparent that the national provision of telecommunications services is seen very much as a public sector responsibility. I am sure that it will remain that way while these sorts of figures are around, simply because the private sector will not be able to meet the sorts of demands being placed upon them. There are very big capital sums involved in the building of our national telecommunications infrastructure. There are very significant time lines involved in securing a return on the investment. In many areas of Australia services do run at a loss. At the very best they are, inevitably, only able to provide slim returns. That is exactly what the private sector are not about. They are not about the provision of services to all Australians on the basis of a slim return and they are not about meeting social responsibilities—they are about private profit.We should see clearly in this discussion what the implications are for the privatisation of Telstra, because that is at the core of the debate about the relationship between public and private enterprise in telecommunications. I think we will see the safety net provided by the public sector in a publicly owned national carrier diminished if there is a further reduction in the level of public ownership in Telstra. This is the real message that emerges from this legislation.I believe that the USO regime should be funded by the industry itself rather than the budget, as many of the more economically orthodox and the so-called economically rational would argue. But I think it also has to be understood that, once a regime is established that allows for the budget to fund social responsibilities like this, those measures will be at the mercy of the cost cutters within Finance and within Treasury.There is always room for the government to put in money for special telecommunications projects. We have seen that in regard to the regional infrastructure program. But we should not confuse these initiatives with the central function of the USO funding. Nor should we see them as solving the problems associated with trying to find a high quality telecommunications service that meets the needs of all Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote parts of this country.What we have seen so far is an attempt to hijack the debate through various bribes and through various attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes. We understand just how easy it is to do that in the case of the National Party. We are only too familiar with the level to which they are prepared to sink to try to get their hands on various amounts of money to hand out by way of political patronage at a local level. That does not, however, address the fundamental problems that arise from insufficient funding for capital infrastructure to meet the ongoing needs of this country.I am particularly amazed at this government's proposal to sell Telstra and at the level of political support it is allegedly attracting from various elements within the conservative parties and perhaps even within some elements of the Senate outside of the government parties. The proposal essentially is that the Commonwealth should forgo a revenue stream which would help fund such projects as the provision of high quality technological services in the telecommunications area for regional and rural Australia. They would lose that indefinite revenue stream resulting from the maintenance of Telstra in public ownership. They would forgo that for the receipt of funds that might emerge from the next 16 per cent sale of Telstra and from the 100 per cent sale of Telstra, because that is exactly the bill that will be coming before us next on the Notice Paper. It will be for the 100 per cent sale of Telstra.We were told that the government hopes to generate around $340 million worth of dividends this year. This compares with the $84 million per annum that the government is proposing to spend on telecommunications over the next five years if the parliament agrees to a further 16 per cent sell down of Telstra. The figures just do not add up.You would have thought that National Party members, being keen businessmen, would have at least understood that. You would have thought—and I see Senator McGauran is here—they would have understood the basic economic principles that were at stake here. The permanent sale of Telstra will mean the permanent loss of a revenue stream to fund the universal service obligations that we are talking about in bills like this, the capacity to renew the telecommunications infrastructure on a much broader level and also the capacity to fund the social obligations that one should expect from a company the size of Telstra.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You just legislate.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—You do not just legislate for them, because the simple fact remains that no private corporation is going to be able to provide these services for the sorts of costs that are being proposed in this legislation. It is a nonsense to suggest that there is any other proposal other than the fact that the public sector is being asked to subsidise the private sector in regard to the universal service obligations in this bill.I believe that this bill will provide the industry with some space and in the short term it will allow some time for a rational discussion about how the universal service obligations should be funded and delivered into the 21st century. But I think there are many other questions yet to be asked and many other questions yet to be answered on the way in which this process should proceed. The discussion so far, to my mind, does ring some alarm bells and it ought to about the way in which the service can be provided to rural and regional Australians if there is a further privatisation of Telstra.Not only the industry faces uncertainty in this area but also all of us do—the entire Australian people—because we have seen in recent times the rapid decline in the provision of service quality for many Australians. It is quite obvious that the industry is likely to face increasing levels of consumer unhappiness and I think it is all to do with the fact that this is a government which has pursued privatisation—it is a key policy objective—in telecommunications. We have a telecommunications company that has sought to respond to this pressure by reducing costs at the expense of service and at the expense of labour in particular, where we have seen one-third of the company being removed.It is only by keeping Telstra in public ownership that we can rely upon a reasonable insurance policy to protect future service levels, particularly for rural and regional Australia and, more generally, for the Australian people and for Australian industry at large. It is only through the public ownership of Telstra that we can expect the high quality of service that we have all come to expect to be maintained.18:02:005494Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—In summing up the debate, I would like to thank the senators who have contributed to the debate. I would like to respond to some of the matters that have been raised. Most of them are quite important ones. Firstly, Senator Mark Bishop, in his contribution, asked why in the long term the other carriers should not share the cost of providing the USO. The answer of course is that at the moment they do. As Senator Bishop would know, the review that is being undertaken by the Australian Communications Authority in its assessment of Telstra's 1997- 98 claim will in fact look into these issues and will consider the full range of options to fund the costs of the provision of loss-making USO services while promoting an Australian telecommunications industry that is efficient, competitive and responsive.The other point that Senator Bishop raised was an important one in that he emphasised the importance of finding a more precise way of calculating the cost of the USO. He would certainly not get any argument from the government on the point and indeed the ACA assessment of the 1997-98 claim from Telstra will report on this methodology issue and how better to do that calculation in the future. So we agree thunderously with Senator Bishop on that matter.Senators Lyn Allison and Dee Margetts both raised concerns that the bill might compromise the capability of Telstra to fulfil its obligations under the USO. The government seeks to reassure those senators—and any other person who has concern about that—that the legislation was prepared with a grim determination by the government that this should not be the case. In fact, regardless of the amount that the USO is costed at, Telstra is required under the law to fulfil the USO and to meet the quality of service requirements under both the USP, the universal service plan, and the customer service guarantee. Not only are they required to do that but also—as the CEO of Telstra has been pointing out over recent days in his travels through the regional parts of Australia—they have very serious market pressure on them to fulfil obligations and—I would suggest to all senators, anyone else who is interested in this debate and Telstra itself—to exceed service standards wherever possible and to continually improve their service.Of course, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the level of competition right across Australia is massively increasing by the day. That competitive pressure will put pressure on Telstra to perform better than it has in the past. I do not think anyone, including the people at Telstra, would suggest that their performance is as good as it could be or should be at the moment. There will be competitive pressure on them to improve their performance and there will be legislative pressure from the USO, the USP and the customer service guarantee. The regulatory and legislative path of putting pressure on them remains, regardless of their ownership structure. So there is a range of pressures on them to deliver high quality services, particularly to those people who live outside the major capital cities and who, I am sure, experience per capita greater service difficulties than those in the capital cities.The other question that Senator Allison raised in a similar vein was the effect of the legislation. She sought for the government to justify why the amount paid from other carriers to Telstra would be reduced and she indicated figures of $25 million to $50 million. I reiterate that the measure we are debating here today is an interim one. If this measure were not to be taken, and if the substantially increased claim was allowed to go ahead without a proper and detailed review, the short-term impact on other carriers would be significantly more severe than the impact on Telstra.Senator Allison also referred to Telstra's suggestion that this could constitute an acquisition of property. Clearly, that is a legal question. The government has advice from David Bennett QC that upholds our view that this does not constitute an acquisition of property, within the meaning of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, from either Telstra or its shareholders. That advice, of course, is privileged. The government understands that Telstra has its own advice. Clearly, there seems to be some risk of litigation about this matter and the government would not, of course, propose to give Telstra the advantage of the Commonwealth's legal arguments by making privileged advice publicly available. With those words, I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Business54955495Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999.Bills5495r8015495Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.18:11:005495Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition has agreed to the program being disrupted to allow the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 to come on for debate because we recognise the importance of this legislation. We also note the extreme difficulty that the government has got itself into with its proposals to privatise Wool International. The opposition is conscious that, whilst the government continues to stumble from one position to another, there is a need for people in the industry to have certainty and that the deadline originally established under the previous amending legislation last year for the privatisation of Wool International by 1 July this year should, if possible, be met. So we are happy to commence the debate on the legislation this evening. It was the understanding of the opposition and, as I understand it, the Democrats that we were working towards a position where this legislation would be non-controversial—that is, it would proceed through the parliament with all parties in agreement. I note that Senator Margetts is in the chamber and I certainly cannot speak for the position of the Greens in that regard. But, in terms of the deliberations of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and subsequent negotiations between the government and the parties, we were of the understanding that the legislation would be in a final agreed form for passage this week.I will come back to that because it has only just been brought to my attention that draft amendments which were prepared by the government as a result of the unanimous recommendations of the Senate committee and which were agreed to by the opposition and, as I understand it, by my colleague Senator Woodley from the Democrats have since been further amended. I have just received in the last few minutes a final draft of proposed government amendments to this legislation. On a first glance, I think we have some problems with it. I put on the record at the outset that this may not be as non-controversial as all parties had hoped.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—We will work on it.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—You need to work very fast, Mr Manager of Government Business. As I said at the outset, this is a timetable that the government set last year. When it enacted the freeze on the stockpile in the wool industry, it set the timetable. With the wheat marketing legislation, we warned the government that this was not something that could be pushed through quickly or rushed through. I fear our predictions may be again coming true.Having said that, I would like to focus on the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . As the name of the bill clearly indicates, this legislation will privatise Wool International. It is an important piece of legislation because it deals with a most important industry and, in particular, with a significant problem that faces the wool industry and this nation and which has done so for a number of years—that is, how to dispose of the accumulated stockpile and at the same time maintain, encourage and promote improvement in our wool industry and, in particular, in wool prices. The history of the stockpile is well known to honourable senators and certainly well known to all participants in the industry.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—There are different versions of history.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I was about to say, Senator Woodley, that it is worthwhile briefly recapping that history because, unfortunately, it seems to be one, certainly from my reading, whereby incorrect decisions were made often with the best of intentions. That probably applies equally to governments as it does to the industry. Whilst the proposal to privatise Wool International is intended to remove government ultimately from the marketing operations of the wool industry and to remove that longstanding tradition of government support or government underpinning for the price of wool and give the power to the growers, one would conclude from that that the industry had never had much say in what went on.I think it is sad that we have to recognise that much of the problem we find ourselves dealing with today in respect of the wool stockpile comes from some very rash decisions made back in the 1980s by the industry. At that time, as we know, there was in place the reserve price scheme—a scheme established for some years which helped to maintain the price of wool such that when it dropped on international markets the government entered into the market, bought up wool and stockpiled it at the minimum reserve price. It was a price support scheme for the industry.During the eighties, the price of wool skyrocketed in the market. Unfortunately, buoyed by that success, the industry—that is, the Wool Corporation at the time—increased the reserve price by some 70 per cent within an 18-month period—a 70 per cent increase in the reserve price to 870c in 1989, a price that could not be sustained. Unfortunately, when the international price fell, when markets dried up, it fell back to government to step in under the plan and purchase substantial proportions of the wool clip. Minister Kerin at the time came under heavy criticism from the industry because, firstly, he reduced the price from 870c to 700c a kilo in 1991 and, secondly, he proposed the ultimate abolition of the reserve price scheme. But, if it had not been for the decisions of the then government and minister, we may well have been in a much worse predicament today than we are.The stockpile reached a total in 1990-91 of five million bales, and the $1.8 billion that had been built up in the support fund was dissipated. This led to the establishment in 1993 of Wool International, whose job it was to dispose of the stockpile in an orderly manner. There were further refinements in 1994-96 when a fixed schedule of disposal was introduced and then again in 1996 when the Wool International Act was amended to provide for the complete disposal of the stockpile by the end of this century, by 31 December 2000.Further, that amendment at that time instituted a system whereby the stockpile would be sold down on the basis of somewhere between 90,000 and 350,000 bales per quarter, and that debt must be retired by 1998. In March 1998, the target date for retirement of the debt was extended by six months.We then found ourselves last year in a position where the government—we said this at the time and we continue to say it—forced by the politics of One Nation, spooked by One Nation, proposed a freeze on the sale of the stockpile. There is no doubt that there was a bitter debate about this within the government and that certainly the National Party and interests within the wool industry opposed the freeze. But they were rolled over, and ultimately the government instituted the freeze.The government first proposed a freeze in August 1998 but they were unable to implement it until after the election in October 1998. The purpose of the freeze was to withdraw from the market the stockpile of wool, which is around one million bales, and thereby hope that the price would increase. We said at the time that we did not think it would work. We proposed amendments to the legislation which would have allowed for minimal sales to at least a level which ensured that the interest debt did not continue to accrue. But our proposals were rejected by the government and ultimately by the parliament.What have we seen since? In August 1998 the market price for clean wool was 575c per kilo; it is now 523c per kilo. Whilst the price has fluctuated in that period, it has really only fluctuated between 500c per kilo and 550c per kilo. The problem still remains. But in that time $26 million has been added to the debt of Wool International, a debt that is growing at $3.2 million per month and one which continues to eat into the equity of the wool growers.When this legislation, which seeks to take the further step of privatising Wool International by the establishment of WoolStock Australia, came before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, we had a chance to hear further evidence from industry representatives. At that hearing on 3 May, the tenor of the submissions was that many groups continued to express their disagreement with the decision for the implementation of the freeze, said that it had not worked, but, now that it was a fait accompli, felt that the sooner we get on with the business of finalising the privatisation and allowing the new body to get back into the business of selling off the stockpile, the better. We are conscious of that attitude in the industry. That is why we have been prepared throughout to be cooperative in terms of our support for this legislation, notwithstanding that we believe some of the decisions along the way have not been the correct ones.In the remaining minutes I want to turn quickly to the structure of the proposed new company and to a particular matter of concern relating to the draft amendments that the government is preparing. The new corporate structure is set out in some detail in the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. I do not need to read that in full, but the proposed new corporate structure essentially is this: a new company, WoolStock Australia, will be established and all of the unit holdings cur rently within Wool International will be converted to shares in WoolStock Australia and distributed to the registered equity holders.A problem has been identified, in that a reasonable number of equity holders are either unable to be identified or, because of technical problems, unable to be directly issued with shares in WoolStock Australia. It is proposed that the TrusteeCo—the trust that is to be set up and which will hold all the units of equity of Wool International and distribute them to the equity holders—would continue to hold the shares and represent the interests of those equity holders that may not be able to be identified.It has been estimated that this could be as high as 40 per cent. We were assured that the relevant authorities were working on trying to reduce that number as much as possible, but it could still represent some 15 per cent of equity holding interests in the stockpile. That is still a substantial proportion of the value of the stockpile, which, from memory, is estimated to be some $471 million—although that is not the net figure because Wool International has liabilities of around $212 million.The problem is that TrusteeCo will be—to put it in shorthand terms—a wholly owned subsidiary within WoolStock Australia. Concern has been expressed about the fact that the directors of WoolStock Australia are appointed by the minister and, in turn, they appoint the directors of TrusteeCo. That raises very substantial issues about ensuring the independence of the trustee operation, particularly when they come to represent the interests of this group of equity holders that sit in this pool—those who have not been able to be identified individually and been issued with their shares—and that could well be a substantial voting block within the company.Because just about every witness who appeared before the committee raised these concerns, the committee has unanimously recommended as follows:5.6 The committee considers that TrusteeCo should be an independent and experienced trustee registered under relevant applicable trustee legislation and independent of the board of WoolStock Australia. Accordingly, the committee recommends that appropriate amendment be made to the bill and/or to the constitution of WoolStock Australia to ensure such an appointment.I will return to where I began. We understood, when we were provided with the draft amendments, that that recommendation had been picked up and that the proposed amendments that were provided to us yesterday clearly would take care of that recommendation. We have since been provided with further amendments which on first glance, we believe, may not achieve the objectives of that recommendation. Therefore, we will need to give some further consideration as to whether or not we can agree with the amendments. Having said all of that, we are committed to supporting the legislation in principle. (Time expired)18:31:005498Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—To assist the government in pursuing its legislative program, I have agreed to speak for only 10 minutes this evening. There are a lot of issues and controversy surrounding the wool industry. Rather than focusing on the problems in the 10 minutes I have to deal with the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 , I will put on the record some options emanating from the industry as to the way forward for the wool industry.The two major events designed to guide the wool industry into the 21st century will be the privatisation of Wool International to WoolStock Australia and the recommendations of the McLachlan task force report Wool industry future directions. The immediate issue is the delivery of the wool stockpile to the equity owned corporatised company, WoolStock Australia. The bill before the Senate largely delivers this and will allow the commercial disposal of the stockpile, which should now be considered as an asset having a sound financial position with an equity ratio of between 2.5:1 and 3:1. There is consensus in the industry on this matter and there seems to be consensus between all parties in this chamber, although Senator Forshaw indicated there were some issues still to be dealt with.The disposal of the stockpile will benefit equity holders as well as the overall wool industry. There must be a clear transition of responsibilities from the government to the equity holders. The setting up of the board should be totally transparent and totally in the hands of the equity holders. There should be no restrictions on the replacement of the board members, however appointed. The phasing out of the government guarantee must be undertaken in a prudent commercial manner to achieve the best result for the industry at large.One of the most fundamental issues within the wool industry at present is building demand at sustainable prices. Members of the wool industry in my home state of Western Australia have been urging the task force to concentrate on the structures, strategies and pathways that will achieve this objective. Consistent with the Greens' principle of participative democracy, we believe it is absolutely essential that the task force consult with the industry in a transparent manner on the information used in its decision making process for the future of the industry. Certainly, members of the wool industry are very keen to engage in constructive discussions to ensure the industry moves forward quickly and sustainably.Over the years, due to poor market signals, lack of clear direction and failure by the industry to adapt to the changing environment, the Australian wool industry has continued to lose market share within the textile industry. The wool industry continues to be fragmented in the areas of supply, processing, marketing, distribution, promotion and research and development, or R&D. The fragmentation within the wool pipeline between the sectors, and lack of adequate communication between them, has contributed to the uncertainty about the industry and where it is headed.It seems that the present situation of the wool industry is unsustainable because of the price structure and lack of reliable macromarket intelligence that makes it virtually impossible for business decision making to be undertaken at the various levels of the production pipeline. A structure must be developed to enable delivery of this information. A constructive suggestion in the industry is that the task force should undertake a comprehensive benchmarking study between fibre competitors and within the wool fibre system. The cost of processing wool is not competitive with other fibres. Benchmarking studies should identify the major problem areas. In terms of farm productivity—scale and commercial performance within the wool industry—resources need to be used in the appropriate identifiable markets, otherwise wool growers will contribute to their own demise through overproduction.The historic structure of the wool industry has prevented it from being vertically integrated compared with its competitors. There must be a far greater degree of consultation on price discovery. It is imperative that changes are made to the present industry structure capable of providing reliable communication and strategy direction.Other useful proposals coming from the industry relate to proposals for a strategic body. Such suggestions are contained in the Wool Council of Australia's strategic organisation model, which evolved from the WA federation's Wool Australia proposal—both seeking to achieve similar outcomes. The strategic body would replace the present structure of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation, or AWRAP, and the Woolmark company. However, the Woolmark company, as a service provider, would remain a competitor for promotion and R&D funding.The effectiveness of the open cry auction system as a means of price discovery needs to be strongly questioned. It appears that competitors within the fibre industry have an added advantage through the use of forward selling, thereby creating stability in decision making for growers and processors. The volatility that exists within the market decreases the effectiveness of R&D and promotion. The processing sector will need to give more than lip-service to the concept of stability if it is to be achieved.There have also been concerns expressed regarding a number of limitations imposed by membership of the Australian Wool Exchange, AWEX. These limitations should be examined, in particular the limitations relating to the charging of trading fees on wool that is not sold through the exchange. In addition, there have been concerns raised that the Australian Wool Testing Authority should remain a company under guarantee. There is also a strong push for a greater level of consensus and cooperation in the wool industry. It is essential for individual businesses to combine or agree on certain issues within the industry to provide effective critical mass—that is, funding for R&D, promotion and quality assurance. Let us hope that the ACCC does not find a problem with any of these very healthy processes.The Western Australian Farmers Federation in my home state believes that the task force should have a number of priorities—the first being that R&D funds need to be more transparent in their allocation. The task force needs to develop a system that allows extensive competition and accountability for funds used for R&D and promotion. More resources in R&D should be applied to the current system to achieve greater efficiency and creativity in the wool processing area.Another priority for the task force should be the redirection of resources from the retail or advertising sector to product development, technical assistance, manufacturing techniques and increased productivity of the processing machinery; it is critical to the future of the industry. In addition, it is considered that the Woolmark logo, with its present standards, has become ineffective. This is an issue that the task force should deal with as a priority. It is considered that the promotion of Australian merino wool should not replace the use of the Woolmark logo but that it could be used in conjunction with it.In conclusion—and I have been even quicker than 10 minutes—as indicated by the fact that the Greens (WA) would have considered that this bill could have been slotted into the non-controversial program for tomorrow, even though we did not necessarily think it was the most urgent bill on the government's program, we will be supporting the passage of this bill at the second reading stage and will also be supporting the government's amendment in the committee stage. 18:39:005500Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats are pleased that the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 is finally before us for debate and that the privatisation of Wool International will go ahead. We are pleased for a number of reasons—firstly, because this has been a bone of contention in this place and certainly throughout the wool industry for a number of years. It seems to us that treating the stockpile as a commercial asset is a device which has been needed for a long time. We are also pleased to see that wool growers will be getting dividends on their equity in the wool stockpile. We certainly believe that that is long overdue.I have to say that, just as Senator Forshaw spoke of some of the history of this whole issue, you can write history from different perspectives. While I am not saying that his perspective is wrong—it certainly is not—I could add just a few other perspectives that the Democrats have about this debate. In November 1993 when Wool International was legislated, we predicted then that, if wool were sold on a fixed release schedule, the schedule was rigidly adhered to and the wool was sold into a market where the price remained low, wool growers would have a disaster on their hands. That did not come from my knowledge of markets—which is perhaps a little better these days but certainly was not all that extensive then—it came from advice I received from a number of wool growers, who in 1993 were only a few wool growers, particularly from the area around Balmoral in Victoria. That small number of wool growers grew into a mass movement, virtually, of wool growers who were concerned about their industry and concerned that they were not being represented by those who they felt should have been representing them.So, in seeking to represent the views of a few people in 1993—who, as I said, became quite a massive movement of wool growers—the Democrats sought to put into the original bill a certain amount of flexibility because we agreed with those who were telling us that the rigidity of the fixed release schedule would produce disastrous results in a low market. Unfortunately, the flexibility the Democrats sought to put in by way of amendment to that legislation was not accepted by the government at the time or by the coalition—the majority opposition at the time. So our amendments were defeated and we had five quite disastrous years for the wool industry. We can debate what all the factors were within the industry over that period of time, but I will maintain to the end of the day that one of the factors in the problems for the industry was the fixed release schedule and the selling of wool from the stockpile at a discounted price.We received evidence at a number of Senate inquiries which showed that the selling of wool from the stockpile at a discounted price did affect fresh wool being sold on the market immediately following the sale of wool from the stockpile. So there is still a lot of uncertainty in the industry and, as Senator Forshaw said, the price of wool is still not good. The wool stockpile is still accumulating debt and, although I concede that the stockpile is much smaller than it was—and that is certainly a very positive thing—we really do need to get this legislation passed and to give back to growers some control of their industry and to put some certainty back into the market.Unfortunately, Wool International have been blamed for all of these problems. I do not think they really should take all of the blame—I think that is probably a bit unfair—but, nevertheless, they are seen to be one of the major problems as far as wool growers are concerned and they do not have the confidence of many wool growers at the present time. So the legislation that now allows the government to remove itself from the selling down of the wool stockpile and to put the business in the hands of the wool growers is very welcome. That includes replacing Wool International with a body to be called WoolStock Australia.Many growers contacted the Democrats over their concerns about the role of the trustee. The government's amendment seeks to address those concerns. We have been advised that most wool growers are happy about that. But I have to agree with Senator Forshaw in his comments on the latest amend ment. I have been given assurances and I recognise that recently the government's advisers explained the amendment to a large extent. I have to say to the parliamentary secretary that there is a clause in the amendment which does cause some concern. It would be useful if at some stage in the debate the advisers could give the parliamentary secretary advice which could then be handed on to us.Another problem is that I have been handed two versions of the amendment. One version contains a clause 7. I have just been advised by the parliamentary secretary that clause 7, which has caused a lot of concern on this side, has been deleted. That makes things much easier. I will restrict myself to speaking for only 10 minutes because we all want to push this legislation ahead: we know that it is beneficial.Some of the other concerns raised with me, which the parliamentary secretary may wish to address in the debate, went to the composition of the board—and I am sure the parliamentary secretary will give us some assurances in that regard—and the whole problem of the separation of WoolStock Australia from the trustee company. We are very pleased that the amendment seeks to address that.However, I received a note recently from one concerned constituent who queried why option 1 would have such a negative tax impact. That was the original option which was much simpler. We know that this particular option, which the amendment covers, is really to do with the concern about the tax treatment of equity in the trustee company. The question I ask is this: why cannot the trustee company just pay out the dividends to people who are known to the trustee company without paying tax? The government has already given an exemption by making WoolStock free from any taxes, so why can't the government say that the trustee company will not be liable for any taxes on dividends from WoolStock? It would be helpful to get an answer to that question on the record.I note that there are a number of attractive and substantial offers to buy the total remaining wool in the stockpile. I believe there should be no impediment to that. In the Senate committee hearings we were given assurances that there would not be. In fact, Mr McGauchie gave assurances that the interim directors would facilitate the sale of the stockpile, or at least give that option serious attention and give an indication about those offers to the first annual general meeting of the company. We hope that will happen. Again, some assurance from the government would be helpful.Concern has been raised about the sunset clause. That is what a number of people who raised this with me called it. I presume they mean the possibility of the winding up of the company once the stockpile is sold. They raised the possibility that it may be the wish of members at that point, and of directors, to define a continuing role for WoolStock. My reading of the legislation does not suggest to me that that would be impossible. I understand from the legislation that nothing would stop members of WoolStock and directors from making a decision about a future role. However, maybe the government can give us some clarification at that point and an assurance that that is so. If the shareholders in WoolStock and the directors decide that they want to continue the company in some future role, that should be their decision. So we would not want anything in the legislation that prevented that. We would like some assurance about that.It is worth referring to another issue which arose during this debate because it is the kind of thing that causes concern within the community. There was a memo from the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia to its members dated 18 March 1999 which gave details of a meeting between the brokers' representatives, John O'Connor and Don Fraser, with Mr Don McGauchie from the interim advisory board of Wool International. The memo stated:There will be no direct election of board members by shareholder/growers, so grower politics should not be a problem.I know that has been addressed, and I am grateful for that, but it was that kind of comment and behind-the-scenes machinations which caused a lot of concern. One of the things that growers are very suspicious of— and I think they have every right to be—is the thought that, behind the scenes, the government, the interim board of WoolStock or any member with that kind of power might play around with the equity and the rights of growers.While the assurances have been given, that certainly did not help and I would caution any of the players in the wool industry against playing those kinds of games because I think we are way past that sort of machination. I think everyone wants growers to have an input and receive a decent return for their product. They want this great primary industry, which has been part of Australian history for almost the 211 years of European settlement in this country, to be able to go ahead. I trust that the parliamentary secretary will be able to take up some of those questions in the debate and perhaps put on the record some words which will give us assurance on the points that I have raised.18:53:005502O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The wool industry is a very important industry for Australia, and that has been the case throughout federation. In the 1960s and the 1970s the majority of wool growers and also wheat growers in Australia went about their business very much in the same way. Wheat growers would plant their crop and pray for rain; the crop would be harvested and the grain taken to the nearest railway siding; and it would be dropped down the chute and the farmer would drive home and wait for a cheque to turn up in the mail. Most farmers knew little about marketing their product—they did not have to because they just grew wheat and dropped it down the chute. They had one customer: the wheat board. Wool growers were very much the same.In 1970 the original reserve price scheme was introduced. That was a period of depressed prices and considerable market uncertainty. The scheme was run by the Australian Wool Commission. Its role was to smooth out prices rather than defend a minimum price. The Australian Wool Corporation was established in 1973 and was given the responsibility of managing the reserve price scheme. A minimum price scheme was introduced in the following year. That scheme was introduced in good faith in an attempt to deal with wool prices. The Australian Wool Corporation managed the scheme. The government, on the advice of the corporation, set the reserve price and the corporation gave that advice following discussions with the Wool Council of Australia. In effect, over time the industry was all but setting its own reserve price and its decisions were being underpinned by government. I understand that a number of wool growers found their way onto the corporation board and, of course, the board of the Wool Council was obviously made up of wool growers.Growers were therefore able to determine their income, not by working on producing a better product but by simply increasing their level of production. They were not forced to consider the level of demand for the wool or the quality or type of wool that might be demanded. They were not required to look at the efficiency of their operations or the interests of their customers. During that period, wool growers had one customer, the Australian Wool Corporation, and the Australian Wool Corporation would take anything regardless of quality and pay a guaranteed good price. They could simply look at what price was on offer and then determine whether to sow oats or run sheep. If they ran sheep they knew exactly the return they would receive. All they had to do was grow the wool.The National Party has been operating pretty much the same way. It was not looking at the product that it was offering to its customers. It did not have to because, in the view of the National Party, it was the only political game in its town—in rural Australia. National Party politicians only had to turn up on polling day and they would get the vote in the bush. This National Party view of its own self-importance was summed up very succinctly on the ABC The World Today program on 29 March this year. The program interviewed Senator Bill O'Chee about the hiding inflicted on the Nationals in the New South Wales elections. Senator O'Chee claimed that it was only the Nationals who could deliver to regional and rural Australia. He said:The National Party can do that and that is why we will be indispensable in the future, as we have been in the past.So the Nationals enjoyed the same security wool growers enjoyed in the 1960s and 1970s. While the wool growers took for granted that there was and would always be a base price for their product, the National Party, as Senator O'Chee said, were `indispensable'.Of course, all of that has now changed. The minimum price scheme for wool came under considerable pressure in 1983-84 when the stockpile reached 1.6 million bales. However, the industry then enjoyed a booming market, until the crunch came in 1989. The response to the boom was to increase the reserve price from 508c to 870c, but at that rate it was an interventionist scheme, not a conservative minimum price scheme. The cause of the collapse was a drop in the demand for wool from the then USSR and China. There was a 50 per cent reduction in demand for wool from those two countries. Those two countries between them accounted for 20 per cent of the total wool exports between 1986-87 and 1987-88, and much of that demand was in the mid-micron range. Our medium quality wool was effectively being put on the backs of Chinese and Russian soldiers.But there was a deeper problem that was now starting to impact on the demand for the fibre. That, I might say, was the long-term neglect of the interests of the customers and an appreciating exchange rate which did not help the situation. The reserve price was dropped to 700c in June 1990 but still further pressure led to the suspension of the reserve price scheme in February 1991. It was abolished in July of that year, in fact.After the 1993 election, the then minister, Simon Crean, moved to tackle the underlying problems of the industry. He appointed Professor Ross Garnaut, who recommended that there be a fixed schedule to sell down the official stockpile and to privatise the stockpile manager after four years. Professor Garnaut also recommended a push for new markets.That approach was followed by incoming National Party minister, Mr Anderson, to his credit. In March 1996, he called a wool industry roundtable. He said the roundtable was designed to help consolidate the industry's future. He reaffirmed that the Howard government would maintain the scheduled sell down of the stockpile. If he had been able to hold that line, the stockpile would now be gone—there would be no more stockpile. Under increasing pressure, Mr Anderson gave some ground on the selling schedule at the end of 1996, but he again repeated his assurance that the schedule would stay. In the end, however, it was not Mr Anderson who succumbed to pressure; it was the Prime Minister himself. It was not pressure from the industry but pressure from three of his backbench colleagues: Senator Crane, Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson Tuckey. That pressure was generated by One Nation candidates and yet another simplistic argument in response to a difficult issue.At the beginning of August last year, Mr Howard froze the Wool International stockpile—not Mr Anderson or Mr Fischer or even the cabinet; it was the Prime Minister. Like all before him, Mr Howard has all the votes at the cabinet table if he needs them. When he has not got those votes, he has not got his job. He will soon face a further test of his authority, in that regard, in the cabinet room and the test will be the future of the GST. The outcome of that vote would be best described as uncertain—but I digress. There is no-one around the table that owes the Prime Minister anything now. He does not have any markers to call in. Mr Howard's decision to freeze the stockpile was designed specifically to meet what he saw as a short-term political imperative. It was designed to do little more than hold back One Nation in Western Australia at the last election. It cost the industry well over $30 million.I am sure that when he does speak in this debate, Senator Crane will argue that the decision also held the price of wool up by reducing the volume of wool going onto the market and hence, by demand and supply forces, affecting the price. Of course, in looking at that equation, one would have to look at issues such as the amount of the private stockpile that found its way onto the market when the official stockpile was frozen. There has been a significant amount of evidence presented to the Senate committee in its inquiries that, in fact, that is exactly what happened and that all we saw was the replacement of a significant part of the official stockpile in the market with the private stockpile. We could also say that the price of wool has not shown any trend upwards, but in fact more likely a trend in the other direction.I go back to the issue of the $30 million that it cost the industry—we do know that. We can speculate about the impact of the freeze and we say that the freeze has not helped the industry—it has affected only a small percentage of the wool available—but we do not have to speculate about those costs incurred by Wool International that growers have been forced to meet. We do not have to speculate about the millions of dollars paid to consultants engaged to develop a new private entity to manage the stockpile. We do not have to speculate about the $500,000 paid to the former President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr McGauchie, to come up with a business plan for the privatised Wool International. And we do not have to speculate about the millions of dollars of wool growers' money that have been paid to the former Minister for Defence, Mr McLachlan, to enable him to travel the world looking at woollen mills. These costs are as certain as the price of wool was in the seventies and eighties.The report card on the wool industry over the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s is not an impressive one. This industry, with the help of government, has allowed the world to pass it by. The report card on the National Party is just as depressing because this is the party that has seen itself as the custodian of the bush for nearly 80 years. The source of the report card that I talk about on the National Party is indeed an authoritative one because it is that of the Deputy Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson.I have, in previous contributions to the Senate, referred to Mr Anderson's speech which was delivered at the National Press Club on 17 February this year. Mr Anderson said then that the sense of alienation—of being left behind and of no longer being recognised and respected for the contributions to the nation being made—is deep and palpable in much of rural and regional Australia. He said there are some areas doing well but there are many that are not. Mr Anderson said the rural decline has manifested itself in much higher rates of alcoholism and depression than in the cities, higher unemployment, dramatically higher youth suicide, fewer GPs and even fewer medical specialists. This is Mr Anderson's scorecard and this is the scorecard against which nearly 80 years of political stewardship of the National Party should be judged. Just as the wool industry has suffered a slow decline, so has regional Australia. All of this paints a somewhat depressing picture, but in fact there is a very positive future, both for rural Australia and the wool industry.Firstly, the industry must increasingly become customer focused. The quality of wool that we produce in Australia must be superior to that of our competitors. We must also ensure that there is an adequate research effort by both government and the industry. Regional Australia also has a bright future if it is presented with the right policy framework in addition to an appropriate level of government support. There is nothing on the table at this time that satisfies those tests.Let us not forget that the wool industry still generates about $4 billion in export earnings. The wool industry has a future, as does regional Australia. You would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that your state and mine, the state of Tasmania, is part of regional Australia and the wool industry is an important industry in that state. I am able to say that the National Party has no future. As voters in the state of Tasmania have consistently shown that they do not believe that the National Party has any place in that state, I believe the rest of Australia is coming to the view that the National Party is not a party for the bush but a party that has become smug and arrogant and will not deliver anything to them.In terms of the debate on this legislation, the Labor Party has taken the view that it is important that the views of the industry are reflected in the outcome of the debate. It is clear that there is broad support for the process of privatising the stockpile. While the industry had a very strong view that the freeze should not have occurred and was extremely disappointed that Minister Anderson's views were rejected by cabinet when he proposed that there not be a freeze, it has come to the view that it is impossible to revisit the past, that it is time to move on and that the privatisation should take place. The opposition supports that view, as it has supported the views I described about the future of the industry and indeed the future of regional Australia.In a contribution I made earlier today in the context of this particular time being given over to government business, I said that it would be important to facilitate debate on this bill now because it might not be possible to pass the bill tomorrow in so-called non-controversial legislation time, which was the time the government proposed that this bill be debated in. Shortly before the debate commenced—and I am sure that other senators have touched upon this—we were rather shocked to see a new form of amendment giving effect to the unanimous recommendation of the legislation committee which reported on the bill that there be an amendment to the bill to ensure that the Wool International units transferred to shareholdings which could not be attributed to an owner be held by a trustee company outside of the company being set up to take over the stockpile.There was, until a short time ago, an understanding that, whilst we need to tick off on the final words, there would ultimately be no difficulty in coming to agreement on that. As I say, shortly before this debate commenced we received a document which included what I might describe as a `get out' for the trustee company to avoid, potentially at least, the recommendation of the committee. The officers of the department have explained that that was drafted by Parliamentary Counsel and that it had recently arrived. At that point, I approached the parliamentary secretary to indicate that that might indeed blow out the agreement that was pending—that this matter would be dealt with as non-controversial legislation.The Labor Party are now in the position where we have a new form of words. We will need to consult with our shadow minister, the member for Corio, Mr Gavin O'Connor, as a matter of our processes, and we will be doing that with the view that he will assist us in making a decision as to whether this matter proceeds in non-controversial legislation time tomorrow. I am confident that it will, but I am indicating now that that is a matter to be resolved. Given my expectation, I would be hopeful that we can conclude this bill in that time tomorrow.I note that there is a possibility of additional sitting time this week. If that is not possible, then maybe the government will have to set aside some small amount of additional time to conclude this matter. But I indicate that we will continue to assist with concluding this matter this week, given that there are timetables which need to be put in place in relation to the privatisation which will be extremely difficult if this bill is not passed this week. There may need to be some small contribution in the committee stage, but I understand this will be the final contribution of the opposition in the second reading debate on this bill.19:13:005505Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their comments. I am pleased that discussions have reached this point of broad support for the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 . I am also pleased that in the wider community the bill has largely met the expectations of virtually all wool industry interest groups. This is the result of a thorough, professional process which has delivered an optimum and fair outcome for each Wool International equity holder. As honourable senators would realise, the privatisation brings to an end the role of government in stockpile management. Hereafter, decisions will be made purely on commercial grounds with regard to the interests of the shareholders only.I would like to answer very briefly some of the questions that Senator Woodley asked in his speech. If he has further questions, I expect he will raise them in the committee stage tomorrow. He asked me why TrusteeCo—the name of the trustee company—may not be exempt from income and other taxes. Tax law in relation to trusts is complex and it is likely that current tax law will require relevant income and other taxes to be paid, but this is still to be fully explored with the Australian Taxation Office. Senator Woodley also asked about the sunset clause. Directors and shareholders—the people who will be in charge of the new entity—could decide to continue the company if there is worthwhile commercial activity and that can be found, but that is a decision for them to make after the establishment of the new entity. I expect they will be giving due consideration to that.As other senators have remarked, this bill achieves the widely supported outcomes of returning the management of the stockpile to its rightful owners, putting responsibility for decisions about the stockpile's future in the hands of the unit holders, protecting unit holders' equity, and leaving the question of alternative wool business activities to the new board and its shareholders.The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has examined this bill and has presented a report that supports the privatisation process. I hear Senator O'Brien's comments re the amendment. I advise him, as he knows, that the amendment has now been amended. I understand it will be considered overnight by the shadow minister, Mr Gavan O'Connor. Like all senators in this chamber, I am very hopeful that this process will lead to the achievement of the objectives of the bill and restore the wool industry in a commercial manner and one that will enable this great industry to proceed in a viable way.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Adjournment5506Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn. 550619:17:005506Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—In the years since the end of the Second World War, almost 5.7 million people have come to this nation as new settlers, including more than 580,000 people who have arrived under the humanitarian program. In that time, the Australian population has risen from seven million to around 18.6 million.Few Australians would be unaware of the most recent component of that migrant intake and the plight of the Kosovar refugees, who have been welcomed to our country over recent weeks. At the end of this week, an additional segment of the 4,000 refugees to whom Australia has agreed to give safe haven will arrive in the country.This particular effort represents Australia's biggest humanitarian effort in 20 years and has, I think, been warmly received by the Australian community. The response of thousands of Australian families and communities has been to offer support and well-wishes to those unfortunate enough to have been driven from their own homes by the situation in their country. Thankfully, very few Australians—and particularly those of my generation—have ever experienced such devastation. As Justice Marcus Einfeld pointed out in the Melbourne Age of 6 May:. . . these gigantic numbers are the biggest involuntary movements of people into a refugee situation since World War II.Indeed, as the Prime Minister said in welcoming the first 410 refugees to arrive from Kosovo:. . . very few Australians can understand the experience you have been through.I am sure all senators have received a number of inquiries, as I have, with regard to the refugees coming to Australia. My office has taken calls from concerned constituents in New South Wales and others who actually require assistance or are offering help to those refugees coming here.However, as important and as public as this effort has been, this is only the most recent and most public face of Australia's immigration program. The humanitarian effort repre sents an important but small facet of the entire program, which has significant impacts on Australian society. Other aspects include the migration program, which comprises categories including skilled migrants, family stream migrants, and the broader humanitarian program. It is these programs of long standing that present the most significant challenge to Australian policy makers in determining what our migration intake should be and where any Australian population policy, if we are to have one, should head.Not surprisingly, it is often these programs that attract the most controversy. Only recently, there was substantial, sustained and vocal debate after the Premier of Victoria, Jeffrey Kennett, voiced his reflections on Australia's population, fertility rates and immigration policy. I was interested to read and hear reports on what the Premier had to say. Whilst I can appreciate the view that speaking about Australia's declining fertility rate at an all-girls school was perhaps not the most strategically appropriate place to raise such issues, essentially, the points he made were valid and do need further attention.As has since been pointed out—particularly in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Michelle Grattan—Premier Kennett said some entirely reasonable things about Australia's population trends. It is worthwhile putting on the record an accurate note of his words. For example, he said:In this region, most of the countries are much larger in population than we are.That is a reasonably obvious statement of fact and not especially controversial. He also said:We ought to try and commit ourselves to increasing our population by at least 50 per cent over the next 60 years. So by the time we get to the year 2060, we should aim for a population of approximately 28 million. The likelihood is our population in that period of time, at the rate we are going now, will only be 22 or 23 million . . . Most importantly, Premier Kennett pointed out a significant policy challenge when he reflected:Not only do we have an ageing population, but we also are not producing in a zero population . . . configuration . . . [therefore] it is important that we keep our population increasing so that there are enough young people meeting the demands of society, working to look after those of us who are older. But also coming up with new ideas.In making these comments, he was contributing to an important policy debate that is neglected—Australia's long-term population policy. It is unfortunate that a pervading mood of almost introspection has gripped some in the Australian political landscape which results in a general unwillingness or lack of interest in participating fully in this debate. It is a debate that we should have. The problem alluded to by Premier Kennett is one which will face Australia's future generations as our population ages without the necessary renewal to provide for that ageing.To have an intelligent and useful debate on the matter, it is important to note some historical and statistical facts. I make reference here to a document entitled Dispelling the Myths about Immigration, produced by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Firstly, in comparison with other countries which operate a formal immigration program, we have an annual immigration intake of 68,000, which is low. The intake of other developed countries is much larger: the United States has an annual intake of 800,000, Canada has an intake of 200,000 and New Zealand, which has a population about one-fifth of ours, has an intake of 55,000.Secondly, I would make the point that Australia derives both social and economic benefits from our migration program. For example, the department estimates that each business skills migrant creates, on average, six new jobs and injects millions of dollars into the economy. Migrants increase the demand for goods and services and, in turn, create new jobs and pay taxes that increase the capacity of Australian governments to provide for our citizens.Migrants do not take jobs away from other Australians. Migrants create employment opportunities for themselves and, by extension, for those around them. The focus of our program is to attract migrants to Australia who can add skills and talents to the pool available within our country. For those migrants who might not land on their feet in our country, there is a responsibility to help them where appropriate. Clearly, migrants bring new ideas, technologies, skills, capital, languages and lifestyles to our country, from which we derive individual and collective benefit.It is also important to point out that the urban myths about migrants being almost solely responsible for the presence of drugs in our society—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—What? Bizarre!M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—and for high levels of crime are absolutely unproven—if you were actually listening, Senator Lundy. They do provide so-called `shock jocks' with endless hours of diverting airplay. The department cites two pertinent facts in this regard: one, research indicates that the crime rate of our overseas born population has historically been lower than that of the Australian born population and, two, ABS figures indicate that the proportion of those in Australian gaols who were born in Australia is 78 per cent. They are important points to note. It is important to make them clear to Australians concerned about our program. They are also important points to make to those responsible for spreading urban myths about migration—those who seek to gain political relevance through the propagation of fear and introspection.It is also crucial that Australians recognise the simple fact that our nation is not burdened by our migrant intake. In fact, the opposite is the case: our nation is enhanced. Our population has increased by one to two per cent each year during the last decade, and natural increase has contributed more to that population growth than overseas migration. Despite what is said by some, Australia is not being swamped by anyone.Our population has tremendous ethnic diversity. Those who migrate to our country and contribute to its cultural and economic strength represent every continent of the globe. Every year our migrant intake includes those from up to 150 different countries. If current immigration trends continue, DIMA projects that the percentage of the population born overseas will decline to 16 per cent in the year 2041. If you combine those statistics with statistics relating to fertility in the population, the challenge is clear. Our fertility rate has continued to decline and, on average, women are having fewer than 1.8 babies. This is six per cent lower than five years ago. In 1995 Australia's fertility rate reached a post-war low of 1.824 and in 1996 it was lower still at 1.797.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs supported Premier Kennett's statements. In Australia our below replacement and declining fertility rate means that our population growth rate will also decline steadily over the next 50 years. If current immigration policies are maintained, the population could peak at around 23 million sometime in the middle of the next century. Where does that leave us? Most likely in a reasonably serious economic and social bind. We will be a country with more older people than younger people and a country with a reduced capacity to look after those older people, albeit a country that might have appeased the historical concerns of a few with regard to immigration rates.It would seem obvious that we need to actively pursue a population policy which would see us avoid that situation. We should aim for a scenario where we are in a position to care for our citizens, especially those who are not in a position to care for themselves. It makes sense to encourage Australian families—families, not just Australian women—to consider their structure and their size in any way that might contribute to this capacity to care for all Australians. But that is not to say that Australian families should conform to a certain configuration. We should actively support all sorts of families in our country as a means of achieving this aim.It makes economic and cultural sense that an additional way to do this is through an aggressive immigration program that seeks out skilled migrants who can contribute an enormous amount to our cultural and economic framework. Australia has long benefited from our pursuit and promotion of multiculturalism, and this is not the time to let fear, ignorance or lack of vision stand in the way. (Time expired)550919:27:005509Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise to speak on a matter of considerable importance. Of late it has become even more fashionable for state and federal Liberal governments to promote the cause of competitive tendering for community services. In search of the holy grail of competition, a succession of Liberal governments has believed that everything can be put out to tender and that all of society's ills can be resolved somehow through competition.I am not one of those who believe that we can achieve a better society through singular reliance on market forces. Those who would have us believe that competition policy is the means to achieve better community services have a different agenda altogether it seems. Competitive tendering of community services is a device that is designed to drive down the costs of community services and to achieve a good bottom line for government. It is not at all about improving the quality of services that are provided to our communities. I put it to the Senate that the Liberal government is using competitive tendering of community services throughout Australia as a multifaceted device to silence community opposition to the excesses and insensitivities of government policies, as well as a crude tool for reducing overall public expenditure on the essential services that, as has been demonstrated, have not been fulfilled by the private sector.Competitive tendering forces community providers to toe the government line or risk losing their contract to provide that service. Community providers with a long history of providing quality and efficient services are suddenly forced to enter the market to tender for their own services. In effect this means that those community providers who accommodate their staff with proper working conditions and award rates of pay are forced to compete with potential providers who can slash costs and tender prices by ignoring longstanding employment conditions and quality service standards.In my electorate, the ACT, we are currently witnessing an ideologically driven ACT administration hell-bent on tendering out everything it can lay its hands on. Just a few weeks ago, the ACT government placed advertisements in newspapers calling for tenders for the Civic and Woden youth centres, centres which have operated successfully and efficiently for over a decade. A characteristic of the ACT government's tender process is to load in additional services without providing any additional funds to compensate for this increase in activities. As governments move towards a purchaser/provider model, the emphasis is supposed to be on purchasing outcomes. Such a model precludes a government from also dictating inputs. However, the ACT government wants it both ways, no doubt encouraged by its economic rationalist masters in the federal government.In the case of the Woden Youth Centre, the ACT government had the hypocrisy to include in its tender specifications a requirement for the successful bidder to provide services, at no cost to the ACT government, from a grant that the Woden Youth Centre had previously won from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This grant, for what was known as a Living in Harmony reconciliation project, was approved for indigenous youth in the ACT region. The ACT government had the gall to laud Woden Youth Centre's initiative by putting out its own press release, which proclaimed that the centre had a `strong reputation for supporting Aboriginal youth', whilst at the same time putting the purpose of this one-off grant from DIMA into its own tender specifications. Please! It takes a hide as thick and as dead as Phar Lap's to claim credit for someone else's initiatives. To then appropriate that idea into your own conditions for service provision is an example of the audacity that many of us Canberrans are becoming used to in respect of the ACT government and the conduct of the Chief Minister.To compound matters, the ACT government has also incorporated into the Woden tender the provision for an outreach service for young people in the Canberra suburb of Narrabundah. This service had previously been run as a project by the Narrabundah Residents Association. On the face of it, it made logical sense to incorporate this service into a broader and larger mainstream service. Unfortunately, logic is not a strong point of the Liberal minority government of Kate Carnell. Upon investigation, it became crystal clear that the Narrabundah service was an albatross.I should mention at this point that the main clients of the Narrabundah service are young people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. For the princely sum of $26,000 per year the ACT government allowed a service to operate out of a building that is not fit for human habitation. The building in question is an ACT Government owned property, and if sited in the larger population areas of Woden or Civic would be condemned as an outrage by the community. Yet to the ACT government it was clearly good enough for Aboriginal people to be shunted out of sight in the back streets of Narrabundah. To add malice to mischief, the ACT government now expects the winner of the Woden tender to pick up four years of ACT government neglect at no cost to the government.This is the downside of competitive tendering. It allows governments to shift their responsibilities onto the community. It shifts the burden of providing quality services onto the backs of community and youth workers by forcing them to take the cuts in their pay, their working hours and their conditions of employment. It forces services to go cap in hand to the community to provide top-up funds to meet the contractual requirements of governments. You need only see this year's reports from several of the major charities here in the ACT to know of the shift in the burden that is occurring, from what was previously provided as government services, onto those in our community who offer a charitable service, such as St Vinnies. This is from the very same Liberal Party philosophy that wishes to foist a GST on the whole of the community. No mention is made of how non-profit community organisations are expected to meet the burdens of compliance whilst at the same time facing cutbacks to their own funding base by governments, and it is happening at the same time. How much GST must a youth centre pay for a donation from a bakery to provide bread for free meals at the youth centre?This is a serious problem. It is the agenda of the Liberal governments in the states and territories, in conjunction with their mates in the federal government, to force all community organisations out of business—this is what it looks like. This is how these people in the community are feeling. Is it the conservative agenda to return to the welfare mentality of the 1950s where good deeds are only to be performed by charities, religious organisations and benevolent societies?Community organisations, be they youth centres or community advocacy groups, are designed to give people self-respect and dignity, a place of their own and a voice in the way things are done. The present government and its counterparts in the ACT government appear determined to force all community groups to dance to their tune, to toe their line, to behave in the way that they want them to behave, or be put out of business. We have already seen the demise of AYPAC, the only national voice for young people, defunded by a vindictive minister, David Kemp.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please refer to the minister correctly, thank you.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—The ACT Chief Minister is equally vindictive. They must not be allowed to win, because if they do the whole community will be the loser. It is so hard for these people to find a voice. They are not strong, they are reliant on government funding and they have little leverage.People who regard competitiveness as the key are making a mistake. The future, I believe, belongs to those who cooperate. It does belong to our country's young people and I do not think we should let the ravages of economic rationalism take away their dreams and aspirations. We as a parliament and you as a government owe it to these people to respect their ability to exist in and to participate in society and to have access to the services in the community that provide them with the dignity that they deserve.551119:37:005511Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I was privileged to speak in this chamber a week or so ago about the crisis facing the exploration industry in Western Australia. While it may have seemed to some of the uninformed that it was a parochial subject on which I spoke, the ramifications of the downturn in exploration in Western Australia have a far greater effect on the nation. For instance, over 26 per cent of export income derives from Western Australia. Of that 26 per cent, 72 per cent is directed right back to our minerals exports. As Western Australia has 9.8 per cent of the population, one can easily see the extrapolation of that to the rest of the nation.While not exclusively so, the cause of the downturn in exploration fundamentally goes to the unworkable Native Title Act, an act that was passed in this house after much debate—in fact, the longest in the history of the chamber. Complementary legislation was expected to be enacted in the states so that the Native Title Act could work. The federal government cannot of course legislate with respect to land matters as that is a responsibility and a realm of exclusivity of the states.In 1992, the Mabo decision—the genesis of the problem of native title—was made by the High Court. Last year we had that compounded by the Wik decision. This year, we have had an extraordinary decision made by a Federal Court judge over a large tract of land in the Kimberley measuring 7,199 square kilometres. It is an area of land in the East Kimberley that encompasses Lake Argyle, the biggest man-made lake in the world; the Argyle diamond mine, which is adjacent to the lake and is the biggest diamond mine in the world; the township of Kununurra; and stage 2 of the Ord River development, which has now been put on hold. It also encompasses large areas of government land within the township, areas which could be described as reserves but which now become `negotiable' if the government or anyone else wishes to develop them.Added to this has been the recent decision by the Native Title Tribunal, under the strict registration regime passed in this house, for an area of land of 10,000 square kilometres, stretching from the foothills of Perth, near Toodyay, west to Rottnest Island—there is no anthropological evidence to suggest that Aboriginal people were ever on Rottnest Island, except when they were there doing penal servitude at the turn of the century—and south to an area that fills in that 10,000 square kilometres. We have a Western Australian here tonight on the other side of the house, Senator Chris Evans, who is laughing at the predicament that all of those people in those metropolitan areas are now suffering. Those areas include Kings Park, the Barrack Street jetty, on which we have a multi-million dollar development, and areas around the port of Fremantle. It includes a major part of Perth water, including areas on the south of the river that are vital to the ingress and egress of metropolitan areas.It is not a laughing matter, Senator Evans. I am simply trying to say that, unless Western Australians, and particularly the ALP, take the seriousness of this matter to heart and do something about passing the complementary legislation that was denied the people of Western Australia, we are in serious trouble. It is not just that there are 1,500 geologists unemployed in Western Australia as a result of this complementary legislation that the Labor Party refuse to pass, which would free up the nearly 10,000 tenements that are held up as a result of this; or that a drilling company went into liquidation yesterday and that 11 rigs have been put idle as a result; or that the exploration downturn in terms of dollars has fallen for six consecutive quarters; or that $450 million of Australian exploration funds are now spent overseas: it is the fact that the whole act is not working. This is going to affect all Western Australians and, as a result, all Australians.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Why did you vote for it? It is your act.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Evans keeps on parroting something that you obviously cannot hear, Madam Deputy President. He keeps on saying, `Your act, your act.' It is an act that was passed without the support of the Labor Party. It was passed with the support of a couple of the Independents. Had we not had that support—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You said this was the answer, that this was the solution.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Evans!WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I am glad you did hear him. I am saying that the federal act is something that we can fall back on in Western Australia, and thank God for that! If we could not fall back on that, and start to use some of the aspects of the federal Native Title Act, we would be in even worse straits than we are now.As someone who has been involved at all levels in the mining industry—unlike Senator Evans, who has come from the trade union movement to this place and has no idea about how the mining industry works or what a great benefit it is to Australia—let me say that, with the commodity downturn, with the South-East Asian crisis and with the Native Title Act, the mining industry is in serious trouble.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—The first sensible statement you have made.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Madam Deputy President, you obviously cannot hear those interjections. I heard every other speaker here in silence and I would appreciate it if I could be heard in silence as well.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Evans! Senator Lightfoot, ignore the interjections; they are unruly.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. They are very difficult to ignore when they are so repetitive. I am saying that 40 per cent of drilling rigs in Australia are not being utilised; that could possibly be 50 per cent by now. If the Native Title Act is not going to work, if we are to have courts in Australia that simply exacerbate and create problems instead of resolving them, where do we go? We know that the High Court of Australia is this country's last appellate court. We can now not appeal in any other direction.Ultimately, I suppose, if the appeal from the Federal Court with respect to the decision made about the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people fails, the High Court will hear those appeals. I hope that the High Court takes note of what is happening to Australia. But, if at the end of the day it does not work, we must not be beaten on it, we cannot be cowed as a nation. We cannot end up—as Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew said some years ago when he was Prime Minister of Singapore—as the poor white trash of Asia. If it is not going to work, if the subject that I am talking about is so serious—and I am telling you that it is—then we need to referendum the problem away. If every piece of legislation that we pass in this place is subject to a veto by the High Court, perhaps we should look to the High Court and see whether it can give its imprimatur to pieces of legislation before they come into this house.But at the end of the day, Australians will not be cowed, Australians will not lose their country. If we have to referendum problems like this away, so be it. But I can say without any hesitation as a result of contact with the United Kingdom Privy Council that these problems would not have occurred if the avenue for appeals from this country to the United Kingdom Privy Council had been left open.You may smile, Madam Deputy President. But many eminent Australians have served on the United Kingdom Privy Council and there are those who are eligible still to do so. There are no problems with that. But tonight I am trying to tell you that this matter with respect to exploration is so serious in Western Australia that it does affect the whole nation. Without the Native Title Act, we would have had 10,000 more tenements operating in exploration. No tenements, no prospecting; no prospecting, no drillers—half of whom have their rigs idle now anyway. With no drillers, there can be no mines. With no mines, there is no work. With no work in our mineral industries, there can be no exports.I will finish by reminding the Senate that over 26 per cent of exports come from Western Australia, which has 9.8 per cent of Australia's population. Those exports will diminish. We are mining yesterday's discoveries. We need to fix the Native Title Act legally. If we do not, we simply need to referendum the problem away.551319:47:005513Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—As many in this chamber have observed, one of the most profound developments of the 20th century has been the rise of technology and the emergence of a global economy. We are living in an age of rapid change and technological development, and this has led to dramatic upheavals in the traditional social, economic and cultural givens, particularly in rural and regional Australia—and the face of rural Australia is changing.In 1900 two-thirds of Australians lived in non-metropolitan areas; after World War II that figure had dropped to just below 50 per cent; and now only one-third of Australians live in regional Australia. Yet in 1997-98, primary industries, agriculture, forestry, mining—the area that Senator Lightfoot was just so impassioned about—and energy contributed more than $70 billion towards GDP, which is no mean feat.So why do people leave the bush? The benefits of globalisation and competition have been uneven, adversely affecting traditional family businesses in some areas. Job opportunities are predominantly to be found in towns and cities. Indeed, when I think about it, that is the reason for my being here and not living in Mangoplah, New South Wales.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—I'm sure there were other reasons.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—The subsequent loss of population results in a withdrawal of vital community services in small towns. Senator Evans says that there probably were other reasons. There might be one or two, Senator Evans, although I must say that I harbour the fondest feelings for Mangoplah. The emergence of sponge cities—like my bigger home town of Wagga Wagga, and Dubbo, in New South Wales—have been growing at the expense of the surrounding countryside.Undoubtedly there is evidence that rural and regional Australia are suffering, at least in pockets. Thirty-three of the 37 poorest federal electorates in Australia are rural. Youth unemployment is up to three times the national average. Wages and living standards are well below the national average. In some rural and regional communities, there is a wait of up to two months for a consultation with a GP. Of course, the consequences are that there are higher rates of depression and alcoholism; youth suicide rates—and this is particularly alarming—are 13 times the national average; one in five heroin deaths occurs in country Australia; and drug-related crime has reached unprecedented levels, with burglary rising over the last five years by 50 per cent in Dubbo, 41 per cent in Orange and 40 per cent in Coffs Harbour.So some important questions need to be addressed. Is Australia becoming two nations? Have globalisation, competition policy and domestic structural change created a society characterised by urban haves and rural have-nots?There is no doubt that parts of rural and regional Australia are struggling to come to terms with rapid global change and, as a result, face complex and profound problems that need ongoing national attention and action. It has become a popular Australian pastime to lay the blame for both the economic downturn and the political disenchantment in the bush at the feet of competition and competition policy. As competition policy has enjoyed bipartisan support and been pursued vigorously since Australia's nine governments jointly agreed to implement the national competition policy package in 1995, it is critically important as a matter of public debate to identify whether the policy has produced the anticipated benefits.To place the blame primarily on competition policy not only is simplistic but also shows a misunderstanding of the long-term factors, primarily globalisation and technological changes, that have been the real drivers of structural change in rural and regional communities Australia wide. The release this month of the Productivity Commission's Draft report on the impact of competition policy reforms on rural and regional Australia has confirmed that competition policy does in fact greatly benefit rural communities, both economically and socially, and has reinforced the notion that much of the criticism and blame has been misdirected and that the process is misunderstood. The draft report has concluded that competition policy has become a convenient whipping boy or scapegoat for the social and economic problems that have impacted rural and regional Australia. The adoption of a coordinated approach to reform on a national basis recognises the growing reality of Australia as a single market rather than as a series of markets delineated by state borders. The objective is not to pursue competition as an end in itself but, where appropriate, to inject competition into previously sheltered areas of the economy and to create more efficient use of the nation's electricity, water, gas and road transport infrastructure. The aim is to promote growth and raise the real incomes of Australian households.One of the most positive conclusions of the draft Productivity Commission report is that, on a conservative estimate, national output would be around 2.5 per cent higher if competition reform were taken to the next level, with positive and profound ramifications for country Australia. In simple terms, if rural and regional Australia is to succeed in the new world order dominated by technological change and a global marketplace, then competition must be embraced—and embraced sooner rather than later. Alan Wood, writing in the Australian earlier this week, made this very pertinent statement:Failure to implement competition reform cannot stop the impact of broader economic and social forces but only deny Australia the benefits of the reforms themselves.It is gratifying to learn that consumers, user industries and governments are already deriving benefits from national competition policy reforms. It is timely to remind the Senate and those listening to this debate tonight of just a few examples. Electricity bills have fallen about 23 to 30 per cent on average and up to 60 per cent in some instances for those New South Wales and Victorian businesses covered by the national competitive market, while wholesale prices for electricity have fallen around 23 per cent since its internal competitive market commenced. Gas prices for major industrial users fell about 50 per cent after the deregulation of the Pilbara market in 1995, while gas distribution tariffs are set to fall 60 per cent by the year 2000 in New South Wales compared with 1997 levels.Rail freight is another example. Rail freight rates for grain in Western Australia have fallen 21 per cent in real terms since deregulation in 1992-93, while rail freights for the Perth-Melbourne route fell 40 per cent and service quality and transport times improved following the introduction of competition in 1995.To take a totally different example: conveyancing fees in New South Wales fell 17 per cent between 1994 and 1996 after the abolition of the legal profession's monopoly and the removal of price scheduling and advertising restrictions, leading to an annual saving to consumers of at least $86 million. At least that is a start to provide some sort of access to justice in legal matters.Over the four years to 1995-96, the prices for goods and services provided by various government trading enterprises made back to their governments actually doubled—due in part to competition reforms. In Queensland, 10 of the 17 largest local councils have implemented two-part tariffs for water, resulting in an average saving in water usage of 20 per cent in the first year. This is a very good one: following a review of business licensing in New South Wales that had found significant duplication and overlap, some 72 licences have been able to be repealed and more are being looked at. Among other changes, 44 categories have been collapsed into just three.The role of competition in the delivery of services is vital, and nobody realises this more than the government. Obviously, competition policy is not a panacea. But it does go a very long way towards providing better services, competition and much fairer outcomes for people who have suffered too long in the bush.Senate adjourned at 7.57 p.m.Documents55155515The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Meat and Live-stock Export Order No.— 1/99—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality Beef Export to the European Union) Order 1999. 2/99—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Beef and Veal Performance Recording—Exports) Order 1999.Public Service Act—Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/11-1999/15.Answers to Questions on Notice5516The following answers to questions were circulated:5516(Question No. 431)4315516O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1999:(1) Will the Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) be imposed on bookmakers' margins.(2) Have all states agreed to drop state-based taxes applying to bookmakers if a GST is imposed on their margins; if so; (a) which states have agreed; and (b) when were those agreements reached; if not, will a GST be imposed on bookmakers' margins 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 the bookmaking industry.5516Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) GST will apply to bookmakers' gambling margin as set out in Division 126 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998. Bookmakers registered for GST purposes will be able to claim input tax credits to offset any 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 bookmaking industry. 5516(Question No. 672)6725516O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) When was the trial of the Precision Approach Radar Monitoring (PRM) system referred to the Minister.(2) Has the Minister determined that he will assess the environmental impact of the PRM system by way of a public environment report or an environmental impact statement.(3) (a) What was the basis of his decision; (b) when will the assessment process commence; and (c) how long will the process take.5516Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1), (2), (3) No such proposal related to the Precision Approach Radar Monitoring (PRM) system has been referred to me.5516(Question No. 702)7025516Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy3L6VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 27 April 1999:(1) When was the Asian Infrastructure Consortia program first introduced.(2) When was the program abolished.(3) What assessment of the importance or potential of the program was made prior to its abolition.(4) How many applications for loans under the program were received.(5) (a) How many loans were approved; (b) what was their value(6) Were any applications outstanding at the time the program was abolished.(7) Did any of the loan recipients referred to in (5): (a) receive the money approved; (b) form the proposed consortia to tender for contracts; and (c) win any contracts; if so, what was the value of contracts: (i) for which tenders were submitted, and (ii) won by successful Australian recipients of the program. 5517Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Asian Infrastructure Consortia Program (AICP) was introduced in September 1994.(2) The AICP was abolished in 1996.(3) The ACIP was abolished as part of the Government's election platform in 1996.(4) Nineteen applications had been received as of 5 February 1996. Five applications were subsequently withdrawn.(5) (a) Five loans were approved. (b) The total value of approved loans was $2.95 million.(6) Commitments entered into for the 1995/96 fiscal year were honoured, but no funds were available from 1996/97.(7) (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) No.