1999-05-273912SENATE551901999-05-27The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Privilege5519551910000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The Community Affairs References Committee has raised with me a matter of privilege under standing order 81. This matter was the subject of documents tabled in the Senate by the committee on 29 April 1999. The matter concerns the compilation of a document known as the Allars report and the subsequent treatment of the document by the Department of Health and Family Services. Having considered the history of the matter as set out in the documents provided to me, the committee is of the view that the following contempts of the Senate could have occurred in the compilation and subsequent treatment of the Allars report: witnesses who gave evidence before the committee may have been punished for their evidence by the inclusion of certain material in the report and its subsequent publication by the department; the proceedings of the committee may have been misused in order to make damaging statements about, and to inflict harm upon, witnesses before the committee; the proceedings of the committee may have been misrepresented; and there may have been an unauthorised publication of a document compiled for submission to the committee and submitted to the committee.Under standing order 81, I am required to determine whether a motion should have precedence to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. Under Resolution 4 of the Senate's Privileges Resolutions, in making that decision I am required to take account of the following criteria:(a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and(b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.I am not required to consider whether a case of contempt of the Senate has been made out or the merits of that case. Past presidential determinations have indicated that precedence will be given to a motion to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee if the matter is capable of being held by the Senate to meet criterion (a) and if there is no other readily available remedy. Past reports by the Privileges Committee and determinations by the Senate have indicated that the committee and the Senate take very seriously any suggestion that witnesses may have been harmed because of evidence they have given to Senate committees. Interference with witnesses has traditionally been regarded as belonging to the most serious category of contempt. The matter, therefore, meets criterion (a).In relation to criterion (b), the only other available remedy would be a law suit by the witnesses against the department but such an action would be severely limited by parliamentary privilege. Past presidential determinations have indicated that the possibility of such civil proceedings is not regarded as a readily available other remedy.I therefore determine that precedence be given to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee and I table the documents provided to me by the committee. In accordance with standing order 81, a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may now be moved.Motion (by Senator Crowley) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee of PrivilegesHaving regard to the documents provided by the Community Affairs References Committee in relation to the compilation and distribution of the Allars report:(a) whether witnesses who gave evidence before the committee were injured in consequence of their evidence;(b) whether the proceedings of the committee were misused to inflict harm upon witnesses before the committee; (c) whether the proceedings of the committee were misrepresented; and(d) whether there was an unauthorised publication of a document compiled for submission to the committee and submitted to the committee;whether any contempt of the Senate was committed in relation to these matters.Notices552055205520Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate congratulates the Manchester United Football Club for its magnificent sporting accomplishment in achieving the treble of the British premiership, the FA Cup and the European Championship.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think it is out of order unless there is some Commonwealth responsibility and involvement, Senator.Business55205520Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. today:No. 2— Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999No. 3— 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 1999No. 4— Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999No. 6— Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 19995520Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business order of the day No. 19—Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] , and(2) Consideration of government documents.Notices55205520Items of business were postponed as follows—General business notice of motion no. 215 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to Kosovo refugees, postponed till 24 June 1999.General business notice of motion no. 231 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to property and inheritance rights for people in de facto relationships, postponed till the next day of sitting.General business notice of motion no. 206 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to indigenous education, postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees552055205520Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be extended to 24 June 1999.55205520Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be extended to the first sitting day in October 1999.Miscellaneous5520Motion (by Senator Margetts) put:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the ongoing difficulties associated with the Royal Australian Navy's Collins class submarine project, as most recently reported on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's `4 Corners' television program, including: (a) serious deficiencies in the combat system; (b) significant problems with the acoustic signature of the class; and (c) questionable activities during the source selection process, (ii) the ongoing investigation of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the reports of the Australian National Audit Office on the project, (iii) that, as a result of the unsatisfactory state of the project, the Navy has only one Oberon class submarine and no Collins submarines available for operations, and (iv) that the Government has found it necessary to appoint an inquiry into the project;(b) expresses its concern that the membership of that inquiry may be perceived to compromise the independence of the inquiry; and(c) calls on the Government to set up a fully independent inquiry into the source selection, management and production of the Collins class submarines without delay.09:40:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.50Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.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.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Business55215521Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That 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.09:47:005521Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—This is again a change to the times of the sitting of the Senate to accommodate a fast-moving feast of government legislation which seems to have no particular order to it except a rush to get things through before 1 July. I want it recorded here that I have written to the government and said that the Greens do not approve of this process, which seems to have no guiding principle and no consistency whatsoever.Committees552155215521Motion (by Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate today from 7.30 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 .Miscellaneous552209:49:005522Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 232, which calls for the Australian government to maximise diplomatic efforts to ensure the rights and safety of West Papuans and their political leaders, be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.552209:49:005522Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I did not quite hear where that objection came from, but I believe that it came from the Labor Party. Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to this motion No. 232.I am surprised at the Labor Party wanting to not allow this motion to go to a debate. I know that they will come up again with the general principle that any motion that has to do with affairs outside Australia should not be brought to a vote, because we will find that the Labor Party not only is denying a vote in the way that we just saw a vote on the Collins class submarines but also will not vote for a debate on the matter. Essentially, the Labor Party is denying the Senate the opportunity to vote on a matter of enormous importance to our nearest neighbours in West Papua, otherwise called Irian Jaya by the Indonesian military regime.I have brought this motion forward because we have two million neighbours—in this small country under occupation from Jakarta—whose political rights, civil rights and cultural rights are totally repressed. We have a series of political leaders from the major parties in Jakarta visiting West Papua at the moment and speaking to rallies, but there is a highly organised resistance by the West Papuan people themselves who want independence. The two million people of West Papua deserve an act of self-determination. It is extraordinary that it takes me as a Green member of the Senate to bring this issue before this parliament.The world has closed its mind to an enormous wrong that is occurring. The meagre news coming through to Australia not only talks of the resistance by the whole populace of West Papua, who are trying to organise a total boycott of voting in the upcoming Indonesian elections, but also talks of a grisly list of deaths, mutilations and torture of political leaders in West Papua, particularly since 1 July last year, when the raising of the West Papuan flag in Biak led to machine gunning of innocent people who were protesting under that flag and then the gathering of women and children in particular, the taking out to sea of those people and the killing of them and the dumping of their bodies in the ocean. There is a tumultuous situation occurring in West Papua, but it is being ignored.I thank the ABC for what little information we are getting through, and there are occasional reports in the newspapers. The latest report speaks of the key opposition party leader from Jakarta, Megawati Sukarnoputri, giving a speech to about 3,000 people on a hillside in Irian Jaya earlier this week—this report came through on Tuesday. While she was at that rally, a leader of the Free West Papua movement grabbed the megaphone, called for independence and got enormous, rousing support for that from the crowd. I call on the Australian government to identify that leader because her or his death is imminent, if we look at what has happened to other people who have spoken out simply for their own freedom—an act of self-determination.This motion simply calls on our government to maximise diplomatic efforts to ensure the safety of such people who are taking part in political discourse in the run-up to elections. There is worse; there is violence on both sides. At the moment, seven hapless Javanese are being held in deplorable conditions by the OPM just on the western side of the border with Papua New Guinea. I call on the OPM to release these people, who are innocent victims caught up in this maelstrom of violence and denial of rights. I am simply putting forward a motion calling on the government of Australia to maximise its efforts to ensure the safety of the West Papuans and their political leaders. I am thoroughly dismayed again at the Labor Party effectively blocking this matter from getting prominence and coming to a vote as it ought to. (Time expired)09:55:005523Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Brown misunderstands the processes in this place. The Labor Party calling `not formal' was to indicate that they were not prepared to have a vote taken without debate, contrary to what Senator Brown has just asserted. The issue is the appropriate time for that debate. There is time for non-government business debates in the Senate program and the time is not now. One of the reasons why we are seeking extended sitting hours—which was just criticised by Senator Brown—is that these techniques, which are being taken up by Senator Brown in particular, take time out of government business.The suspension of standing orders therefore requires Senator Brown to demonstrate why this debate should take place now rather than at the proper time, and he has failed to do that. We are not against debate of this issue. If Senator Brown regarded it as important, he would have given notice much earlier and would have arranged, through the normal processes in this place, for his matter to be given attention in non-business time.On the merits of the action, which I will mention briefly, the Australian government recognises Indonesian sovereignty over Irian Jaya, which was the result of the 1969 UN sponsored act of free choice. Having said that, we wish to see the elections which are now taking place take place in an atmosphere where voters are free and able to make their determination without threat or concern for their personal health or wellbeing. Therefore, the Australian government supports the sentiment that all action should be taken by the Indonesian authorities to ensure that the vote is conducted in that environment.It is true that there have been isolated calls for a boycott of the vote, but we have no evidence to suggest that the wider population plans to boycott the election. In fact, key Irianese figures have reportedly urged people to participate. I would have much preferred to hear Senator Brown this morning urging participation by the population in the opportunity that is presented to them to make a determination on their future. Voting may not be high, and we get some indication of that from the number of registrations, but Senator Brown needs to take into account the difficulties of accessing remote and mountainous areas.The position of the Australian government therefore is that a vote is taking place and we welcome democratic processes of this type. We note the urging by key Irianese figures for the people of Irian Jaya to participate in that process. We urge the Indonesian authorities to ensure that it is a free and safe process within which the people of Irian Jaya can participate. We take this opportunity to again reiterate our very strong position on improving human rights not only for people within Irian Jaya but for all within the region, who still do not necessarily have the same sort of freedoms that we would regard as desirable for all human beings.Therefore, the case has not been made out to suspend standing orders, in our submission, but we take this opportunity to express our desire that there be a free and fair participation in the election process that is taking place at the moment, and the Indonesian authorities should make every effort to ensure that that is the case.10:00:005523O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Senator Brown well knows the Australian Labor Party's position in this chamber on foreign affairs motions and I restate the comments of Senator Faulkner on 27 May 1998 when, for motions dealing with foreign affairs policy issues, he said:In cases where there is not unanimous agreement on such motions, the opposition will not be agreeing to formality.That is a statement I have made, together with others, in this chamber when motions on foreign affairs matters have been raised and, in those previous debates, I outlined the reasons for the ALP's position, as did Senator Faulkner on 27 May 1998. That position has not changed and, for that reason, we deny formality to a motion that, frankly, we do not support in the form in which it is set out. I understand that the government is also opposed to the motion. So it clearly was not a non-contentious motion.In terms of the issues which surround the motion that Senator Brown put, he last sought, by way of a formal motion, to raise the important issue of Irian Jaya in July last year. On that occasion, Senator Faulkner informed the Senate of Labor's position as set out in the resolution adopted by our national conference last year. For the record today, that resolution reads:In the light of Australia's support for the United Nations International Decade for the World's Indigenous Peoples, Labor supports the right of the people of Irian Jaya to develop their own distinctive culture and institutions and expresses its concern about government and commercial activities such as unrestrained logging, mining, trans-migration and expropriation of lands that impact negatively on local communities.Labor notes reports of social unrest, environmental damage and human rights abuses associated with the activities of the Freeport mine and urges the Australian government to ensure that Australian companies conducting operations in Irian Jaya fully respect the rights and traditions of local communities, and develop and observe appropriate codes of conduct.Labor urges the Australian government, particular through its aid program, to provide more support to local communities and non-government organisations to enable them to better protect their interests and rights.Labor calls on the Indonesian government to respond to concerns regarding conditions in Irian Jaya by allowing unhindered access by independent media and by humanitarian and human rights organisations.Labor further urges the Australian government to send a parliamentary mission to Irian Jaya to observe the situation and needs of the Irian Jayan people including with regard to adequate provision of drought relief and to consult with local communities on how Australia can better assist with their development.Labor is very concerned about the situation in Irian Jaya, particularly the ongoing reports of human rights abuses in the territory. In some respects, Senator Brown's motion could have gone further in dealing with the issue of human rights and in calling for greater access by international media and human rights organisations to investigate the situation. It could also appropriately have called for the Australian government to release, with appropriate safeguards for confidential sources, the Australian embassy's report on last year's Biak massacre.We are also aware, of course, of continuing calls for independence for West Papua and of the most recent reports of a boycott in the territory of the 7 June Indonesian national election. These are all matters of considerable interest for us, but we do not consider that Senator Brown's motion today is the best way of addressing these issues. As a consequence, Labor is not prepared to endorse the motion today, nor are we prepared to endorse a suspension for further considering the matter, but should Senator Brown wish to discuss the language and timing of a further motion with the opposition, we would be happy to do so.10:04:005524Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This is an urgent issue because the election process in Indonesia is occurring now. I hate to be the one to tell the government their own processes. However, the Greens would generally get a general business debate maybe once or twice a year. It just so happens that we are not able to advise the Indonesian government to have their elections to coincide with the times when there might possibly be a debate on general notices of motion on a Thursday afternoon. The issue of whether or not there is debating time for motions that are not government motions is an important one because, during the process of response, Senator Hill said, `Notices of motion, outrageous! Notices of motion are taking time out of government business.' The time allotted to notices of motion within the program is not actually just government business. It is an opportunity not just for parliamentarians but for the community, through their elected representatives, to bring up issues which governments and, dare I say, main opposition parties may not consider to be their individual priorities.There is the process by which debate can take place. It is outrageous, I believe, for the government to suggest that we should take that process to its logical conclusion, that is, to ask for debates on notices of motion. I realise that notices of motion may be inconvenient for both the government and the opposition, but nevertheless that is not going to stop the Greens from putting forward those notices of motion and endeavouring to get resolution on those where they are important. Here we have a situation where the issue is self-determination. In the motion itself, let us look at what could be a problem:(a) notes that: (i) during the recent visit of Indonesian political leaders, West Papuans called for independence for West Papua (Irian Jaya)—well, yes, it did happen— (ii) the widespread boycott of participation in Indonesia's upcoming general election is being organised by West Papuan leaders—Well, yes. And whether or not that is everybody is not even up for question; it is widespread. The fact is that none of the 10 political parties who are participating in the current Indonesian elections supports self-determination for West Papua.We know there is a degree of support for self-determination for East Timor within the ALP, but West Papua and, dare I say, Aceh are the forgotten areas of Indonesia because they do not get the same level of media attention and perhaps because Australians are there making a bit of money associated with some of the elements of the Freeport mine and other environmental disasters. Despite the qualified words of the statement from the Labor Party conference, I still cannot see what in this motion would be a problem. The first two parts are statements of fact, and the third is calling on the Australian government to maximise diplomatic efforts to ensure the rights and safety of West Papuans and their political leaders.If the wording of the motion had been a problem for the Labor Party, why did they not contact Senator Brown to ask for a change of wording? They are saying: `It is all right to vote on foreign affairs policy statements if they are nice and safe and if they happen to be something that we put forward. But it is very unlikely that all foreign affairs motions will be agreed upon by all parties.' So the consensus issue for the Labor Party is a very nice excuse for not going outside the square, for not getting into anything that is considered to be contentious in any way. In lots of ways, this means that whatever foreign affairs decisions governments make are protected, because there will be no real debate within this parliament if this is the way we carry on.This is important. At least today this motion of Senator Brown's has brought this issue into the parliament. It is on the record that some people in Australia are concerned about self-determination and human rights in relation to West Papua and are at least prepared to bring them to debate so that those people in West Papua know they are not forgotten. Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.10:14:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)7Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N.46Bishop, T. M. Boswell, R. L. D.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. 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.Miscellaneous55265526552610:17:005526Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-1999 additional estimates hearings.Bills5526r695552610:17:005526Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Ferguson, I present the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 (formerly Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998), together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees55265526552610:18:005526O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I present the 107th report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on the scrutiny by the committee of orders made under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report and to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I move:That the Senate take note of the report. The statement read as follows—The core function of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is to scrutinise legislative instruments to ensure that they do not breach personal rights or parliamentary propriety. One aspect of parliamentary propriety is that legislative instruments should not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment.The Committee does not raise this principle often, but when it does it often highlights fundamental issues of the proper relationship between the Parliament and the executive and of the appropriate prerogatives of Parliament. This Report describes Committee scrutiny of the Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1998 (Amendment) , which illustrates such issues.The Report first outlines the criteria which the Committee apply to determine whether the subject matter of a legislative instrument should be included in a Bill, where it would face the full rigour of parliamentary passage. The Report describes how these criteria have been applied in practice. In one such case the Committee obtained an undertaking to amend the Act to bring to an end seven years of yearly extensions by regulations of discrimination based on sex. Some of the other circumstances where the Committee has raised this matter included the censorship of books, magazines, films and computer games; disclosure of personal information by Australia Post to, among others, ASIO and law enforcement agencies; substantial constitutional change to Australian territories; and the prohibition on advertising natural remedies as drug free.The Report next analyses the enabling Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 , which provides for the management of public money and public property. The Report notes a number of wide powers under the Act to make legislative instruments. For instance, it provides for the Minister to issue Special Instructions, which are not subject to tabling or disallowance, breach of which is punishable by two years imprisonment, which override the Act and the regulations. The Report mentions Committee scrutiny of instruments made under some of these powers.The great bulk of the Report, however, addresses Committee scrutiny of the Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1998 (Amendment) . The substantive part of these Orders, which was six lines long, established Comcover, described as a managed insurance fund, which will insure or arrange insurance, for all Commonwealth insurable losses except for employers' liability risks already covered by Comcare. The substantive part of the Explanatory Statement, which was seven lines long, merely repeated what was in the Orders. The Committee obtained further information from the Minister, which advised that Comcover would be a comprehensive disciplined managed fund, collect premiums, accumulate reserves, meet losses out of reserves, be modelled on the best managed funds in Australia and overseas, improve accountability and transparency to the Parliament, deliver a dividend to the government at least comparable to industry standards and adopt a business-like approach to the government's insurance and risk management arrangements through the provision of services at competitive market rates.In these circumstances the Committee considered that the scheme may have been more appropriate for parliamentary debate and passage, particularly since a similar agency, Comcare, was established by detailed statutory provisions. The Report notes that Committee scrutiny of the Orders took nine months, over two Parliaments, including extensive correspondence, a meeting between the Committee and the head of Comcover and a meeting between the Chairman and the Minister, following which the Minister agreed to amend the Orders to meet the Committee's concerns. The Committee is now able to report to the Senate that the amended arrangements will not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.5527552710:20:005527Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—On behalf of Senator Allison, I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the powers of the Commonwealth and environmental protection and ecologically sustainable developments in Australia, together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings. I move that the report be printed.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your advice. Is this the opportunity to speak on this matter or shall I wait until a further motion is put?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—No, Senator Brown, this is not the time; you need to wait until this motion is carried.Ordered that the report be printed.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report. I want to start by once again thanking the secretariat of the committee. Over the Christmas break the secretariat had two major inquiries—the environment and the GST and this particular inquiry. I notice the chair is here now. If she would like to speak first I will follow her. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10:22:005527Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The large number of submissions—367 in all—received by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee inquiry on the issue of the powers of the Commonwealth on the environment highlight the importance attached by many citizens to the role of the Commonwealth in environmental management in Australia. The overwhelming majority of those submissions deplored the recurrent lack of political will and leadership on the part of all Commonwealth governments to employ the extensive power they possess in order to protect and conserve the environment, which is every Australian's common legacy.It is the view of the committee that the Commonwealth government has the constitutional power to regulate, including by legislation, most, if not all, matters of major environmental significance anywhere within the territory of Australia. Various constitutional heads of power confer on the Commonwealth extensive legislative competence with respect to environmental matters. The committee appreciates that, while the Commonwealth possesses extremely wide constitutional powers over the environment, that power is not entirely unlimited. With an express environmental power, the legislative result would be constitutional certainty. The committee's view is that a large part of remaining constitutional uncertainty surrounding the use of existing Commonwealth power on the environment could be alleviated by the use of independent environmental law and constitutional law experts.An independent statutory environmental and constitutional law experts commission—made up, for example, of members from Commonwealth, state and territory attorneys-general departments, academics, private practitioners and lawyers with environmental community legal centres, such as the Environmental Defenders Office—could advise the government if, when and how the Commonwealth should legislate with respect to environmental matters. The committee is recommending the establishment of such a body. This body could also monitor, review and advise on the government's execution of its responsibilities for environmental protection and ecologically sustainable development.The committee is critical of the narrow approach adopted by the government in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, where only six of the 30 matters listed in the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, heads of agreement on Commonwealth-state roles and responsibilities for the environment are matters of national environmental significance which act as triggers for Commonwealth environmental assessment and approvals. The committee has argued strongly in any case for the Commonwealth to take a proactive role in environmental management. It does not see the `matters of national environmental significance' approach as being particularly useful and has recommended that it be abandoned. That approach takes a narrow view of the wide-ranging environmental powers the courts and the Constitution have conferred. The committee sees this as a deliberate attempt to constrain the environmental powers of the Commonwealth, which cannot be justified.The committee was struck by the strong support expressed in the submissions for Commonwealth leadership and involvement in the protection of sites that come under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Ramsar Convention. In the committee's view, the Commonwealth should acknowledge that it has ultimate responsibility for the safekeeping of world heritage areas. The Commonwealth should not only exercise primary legal control over the protection, preservation and management of these areas but it should also ensure that they are further protected by extending its legislative powers over a defined and adequate buffer zone around world heritage properties that takes into account the natural ecosystem to which the world heritage listed area belongs.The committee notes that the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, IGAE, supports the precautionary principle, as does the committee. A cautious approach is absolutely vital. Once a pristine area has been damaged, it is often too late for the Commonwealth to act. The only safe approach, and in the committee's view the only responsible one, is to protect an area while it is being assessed so that its unique properties are conserved in the event of inclusion under conventions and agreements.On the issue of conservation of biological diversity, the committee believes that the confluence of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the external affairs power enables the Commonwealth to unilaterally promulgate national requirements for the environmental impact assessment of all proposed projects. It can do this regardless of jurisdiction, as long as it believes the proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on biological diversity anywhere in Australia. Consequently, the committee believes that the Commonwealth should establish such national environmental impact assessment standards for the benefit of protecting our biological and ecological resources.The committee is mindful of the roles of state and local governments in environmental protection, but the committee is of the view that strong national leadership with uniform national environmental standards for environmental regulation is the most effective and efficient way to approach environmental regulation. The committee believes that, once minimum national standards are set by the Commonwealth, the accreditation of state and local environmental assessment programs that either meet or beat these standards has a vital role to play in environmental protection in Australia. But the Commonwealth retains approval power for all environment matters of interest to the Commonwealth.National standards must be reinforced by improving opportunities for community participation. Accordingly, the committee is recommending open standing provisions to allow public access to the courts in order to test the validity of governmental decisions and restrain breaches of the law and increased funding for conservation groups, such as the environmental defenders offices, EDOs. Finally, as the 20th century draws to a close, the committee recommends changes to the Constitution that would better equip the Commonwealth to play a strong national role in environmental protection into the 21st century.In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Meg Lees, who set up this committee some time ago. I would also like to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the committee secretariat in pulling together this document as well as—as Senator Bolkus has already referred to—so many other references to it over the last few months. I would like to note the work of the Environment Defenders Office of New South Wales, particularly Dr Don Anton for his work in relation to this report.I thank all of the people who made contributions to the committee terms of reference and those who appeared before the committee at its various hearings around Australia. It was a most informative process, and I think we have a document which will be a very valuable one in terms of both the description of Commonwealth powers and suggestions for a way forward. I commend the report to the Senate.10:30:005529Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—As I was saying earlier on, I want to start by thanking the secretariat. They had two major reports over the Christmas break—on GST and the environment, as well as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill—and the presentation of this report was another pressing demand on their agenda. This is an extremely timely report, because the environment is back on the front pages as a national issue. It should also be understood in this place that there are national environment issues which will have to be tackled by national government sooner or later. Some of those issues have international dimensions and some may only have national dimensions, but the reality is that increasingly there are demands on the national parliament to make decisions in respect to the environment.In terms of national environment issues at the moment, it is significant that we are in a situation where the trend towards greater interest nationally is an irreversible trend. There are international expectations on governments to perform in respect to the environment and those international expectations have direct national implications. There are also issues of a national nature—of land degradation and the like—that require national responses. The environment as a national issue will not just be here while we discuss the environment and the GST or while the Democrats are trying to work out a compromise with the government in respect to such issues. Fundamental environmental issues are emerging or are on the agenda and will not go away.Let us start with international issues. The role of the national government in respect to meeting its international commitments was raised by quite a number of people in submissions to this committee in the conduct of this inquiry. Senator Allison was right when she said the overwhelming body of evidence before the committee was that the Commonwealth government had a critical national role to play in terms of the environment. A lot of those submissions concerned meeting international commitments. There are issues such as greenhouse and climate change which need a nationwide response, a national government leadership role and unilateral action. To meet our international obligations, this government needs to be able to act in a way that ensures compliance with such obligations.There are issues of a local nature, such as Kakadu, which is already on the international agenda. If an area is listed on the world heritage endangered list, once again that issue will not go away from this agenda and governments and parliaments here will have to tackle ways of trying to redress the consequent damage that will be done to Australia's reputation if action is not taken. Such issues include the Great Barrier Reef, another world heritage area which is increasingly attracting attention because of the environmental degra dation in certain aspects of it. Issues such as that will not go away from the national table.We recognise there is a role to play for the Commonwealth government. At a time when those issues are growing and are not going away, the advice and the submissions to the committee indicate that we are quite fortunate that the constitutional capacity of the national government to act has been defined and expanded over the last 30 years or so. There have been critical constitutional cases, dealing with south-west Tasmania, Daintree and other areas, which have seen the High Court define once and for all the extension of Commonwealth powers in respect to the environment to be based on the external affairs power, corporations power, export control powers and the like. That those functions and responsibilities can be based on those powers has been one of the most fundamental findings of constitutional law development over the last 30 years or so.We are concerned that those powers are recognised and that the functions flowing from those powers are accepted. We do not accept the government's view and its concern that the Commonwealth acts on the basis of what the government calls `ad hoc triggers'. Those so-called ad hoc triggers are the triggers that have provided the foundation for the protection of so much of Australia's wilderness and so many critical areas like Daintree and Kakadu over recent years. We would contend and disagree with the chair's recommendations in respect to the establishment of a constitutional law experts commission. We contend that powers have been defined by the highest court in this land over the last 25 or 30 years and those powers are there for the Commonwealth to use. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, the establishment of a constitutional law commission would not resolve anything further. Cases would still be resolved in the courts and the political issues would still have currency in this place and on a state level.The timing of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill also attracted a lot of attention from people making submissions with respect to this inquiry. Quite a number of submitters felt that this particular bill should await the presentation of the report at the end of the deliberations of this committee. I have had that view and increasingly have it, given the nature and complexity of that legislation. It has to be placed on the record that we are talking about a bill which goes in the other direction from what this committee is recommending—a bill that basically devolves responsibilities for the environment to the states, that carries some 17 major escape clauses to flick off Commonwealth responsibilities and give them back to states, and that, through its bilateral network and framework, would ensure that so much of what has been protected over the last 20 years would not be able to be protected by federal government intervention if the legislation the government has before the Senate goes ahead.It is not a surprise that the government want to do that because, consistently and traditionally, they have always had the view that protection of the environment should go back to the states with respect to the areas about which the major High Court cases and the major battles have been fought over the last two or three decades. It is surprising, though, that the Australian Democrats have not put on the record their opposition to a second reading of that legislation. We oppose that legislation because we think it goes in the wrong direction. We think it goes in a direction contrary to the direction that the chair of the committee, Senator Allison, indicated just a few minutes ago. We can see the fundamental flaws in it, we can see the fundamental connection between that legislation and where the environment movement in this country wants to take environmental protection, but we cannot understand why the Australian Democrats are still playing footsies with the government with respect to this legislation.How will you overcome that fundamental connection? How will you overcome that fundamental conflict between the national action with respect to the environment and the government's framework legislation, which has so many escape clauses that a national response would be rendered inoperative? We are concerned that, in the current discussions between the Democrats and the government on the GST, we not only will get a sell-out on the environment but might get a bargain basement sale. It has to be recognised that the legislation before us is in direct conflict with where national responsibility should be for the environment. For the Democrats to be entertaining a compromise with the government on a fundamental piece of legislation like that shows a great degree of naivety. It is almost like children playing with matches. You cannot win in compromising on that legislation. At the moment, the environment movement needs a very clear statement from the Democrats that their opposition to the legislation will not be compromised by any negotiations that are going on with respect to the GST.There is a national role. There is a role for national unilateral action, but there is a greater responsibility for the national government to ensure that there is cooperation not just by states but also by local government and an enhanced role for local government in the protection of the environment. That is another area where the Labor Party has put its position on the record in a minority report of this committee, a report which defines a role for local government that is increasing into the future as well. I commend those senators who were involved to a greater extent than I was in the considerations and deliberations of this committee in the preparation of this report and congratulate the chair for her work as well.10:40:005531Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee entitled Commonwealth Environment Powers brings up an important opportunity to look at what is happening in this great country of ours as far as the environment is concerned, and it is a tragedy. The Howard government has sought and is seeking to engage in a process of dismantling not only the Commonwealth powers but its responsibilities to the environment at a time when the environment is of major concern to all Australians, not least young Australians. It is a time when all the opinion polls show that, if you ask young Australians—people under 25—what the most important issue on their agenda for the future is, the environment streets the field. Yet we have in process what is essentially a movement by the Howard government and the unfortunate Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, to transfer the powers over our environment back to state governments, as they were in the 1950s, and more and more, through secret processes, to the corporate sector. This is a major process of `greenwash', of green beads being put around this process which is enormously threatening to the environment.This report helps illuminate this process, but I am afraid it is not going to help change it. Let me join the call from Senator Bolkus of the Labor Party, who has just urged the Democrats to come out strongly and clearly against the forthcoming environmental legislation which is going to sell out on the environment movement's aspirations to have the Commonwealth responsible for what is happening to the forests, the arid lands, the seas and the biodiversity of this country.Senator Allison read out the lead-in to this report. There is one thing there that I want to repeat. She said:. . . the Convention on Biological Diversity and the external affairs power enables the Commonwealth to unilaterally promulgate national requirements for the environmental impact assessment of all proposed projects, regardless of jurisdiction, likely to have a significant impact on the biological diversity anywhere in Australia.Let me paraphrase that. The Commonwealth can protect Australia's environment. It can protect every species. It can protect every important tree. It can protect every acre of coastline. It can protect every marine ecosystem. All those long words mean is that the Commonwealth has that power; but, instead of using it, it is selling out that power. On page xv of the committee report, recommendation 15 says:The Commonwealth should ensure that an assessment of World Heritage values is required in the early stages of the Regional Forests Agreement (RFA) process.Let us look at what is happening in Tasmania. Such a report on the world heritage values of the forests was done. But today, as we sit in this Senate, the bulldozers and the chainsaws are into those world heritage value forests, cutting them down. They are cutting down dozens of coupes in the Great Western Tiers, the Well Valley, the Picton Valley, the Huon Valley and the valley of the tallest trees of the Southern Hemisphere, the Sticks Valley. Today, a cable logging machine is ripping down world heritage value forests. And what will this report do to stop that? What will the Democrats do to stop that? Are they going to support this devolution of power back to the state government in the case of Tasmania's Bacon Labor government, which has given authority to the bulldozers of the woodchipping corporations to wreak havoc on those forests and their wildlife?This is a time for environmentalists and their representatives in this place not only to speak out but to insist that the government change direction. This report finds that the federal government has, and has always had, the power to protect Australia's environment. Greenpeace, in a submission to this committee, pointed to the corporations power—a power which gives the federal government the ability to direct corporations to protect the environment. Former Prime Minister Hawke thought about using this power in 1985 to protect the very same Tasmanian forests that I am talking about and then backed off. The power is there and it ought to be used in the interests of this nation, but it is not because the corporate sector frightens the big parties so much. The trade and commerce power, the taxation power, the specific purposes grants and loans power, the federal spending powers and the external affairs powers are all there. But we are now faced with a situation where the Commonwealth wants to put those powers under the cushion and sit on them while it hands away its responsibilities to state and territory governments.There is very little analysis of this process in the press. I think it is time that the gallery took up this issue. It does concern Australians. We are facing this year—it is on the agenda of the Senate now—legislation which is going to throw the environment to the wolves, to the resource extractors. I might add that, at the same time, we are looking at a GST package where the Democrats went to the table with a $1 billion gift in diesel fuel rebate at the outset to those very same entities. It is a parlous situation for the Australian environment. It is an extraordinary situation. It is the darkest political hour for the Australian environment at least, when we look back in history, since the early 1970s. This report ought to be analysed not for what is not there but for what is there, which is the specific statement, if you read through the big words, saying, `The Commonwealth has the powers to protect the environment.' We must act to safeguard those powers and to insist that they be used.I endorse again that call by Senator Bolkus to the Democrats. I understand that negotiations are taking place at the moment with the government on that legislation. That is very worrying indeed. I suggest to the Democrats that they spend more time negotiating with the environment movement about its fears on this legislation. It cannot be fixed up, it needs opposing, and to come in here with a series of amendments to try to make it good is to make the same mistake that they have made tactically in believing that they can come in here with a series of amendments which will somehow make the GST package good. This is an appeal to the Democrats from both the Greens and the Labor Party to get back on track on the environment to ensure that we use the numbers in this place in the coming months to get the government back on track with its responsibility to 18 million Australians, particularly young Australians, to use its powers to defend the environment of this country of ours at a time when we all know that the world's environment, the planetary environment, is undergoing the greatest denouement, the greatest degradation, since the dinosaurs went to extinction 65 million years ago.10:49:005532Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is not a lack of powers at the Commonwealth level in relation to the environment, but there clearly is a lack of political will. This is not something that has been newly discovered by this current government; it is an issue that came up on a number of occasions with the previous government. It is perhaps more obvious with the current government because they seem to think the environment is simply a matter of land management and that they can sheet it off as a states rights issue. It then ends up being an argument about who has the rights to destroy the environment, who has the rights to do whatever they darn well like with the environment because somehow they own it. The reality is that we do not own the environment. We are on earth to look after and nurture the environment. It is not a matter of whether we own it; it is a matter of whether we are stewards of that which is the future and not just have the ability to rip out profits now for the present. I do not think the government has understood that in any way, shape or form.I did not have the ability to follow through the hearings of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee because of my other time commitments, but I note that a minority report was submitted by government senators Tierney and Payne. They talk about authoritarian centralism, but I am afraid they have missed the point of the message that was clearly given by many witnesses to this inquiry. The point was that they want all levels of government to take an environmental responsibility. It is my clear belief—because there is this excuse built into our current constitutional basis, which was set up over 100 years ago, that the environment was not specifically mentioned—we need to clarify the Constitution. Quite clearly, the High Court has indicated that the powers that exist with the Commonwealth now are quite sufficient for the Commonwealth to be involved in ecological sustainability. What we need is the political will.When we gave Labor the chance to vote on issues such as the D'Entrecasteaux national park they chose not to do it. They said they would support it but then chose not to bring it to a vote, so the political will was lacking there. The issue now is one of bringing that political will to a head. Unfortunately, we are in a crisis with the environment at the moment. It is a crisis of bloody-mindedness, neglect and short-term economic issues over long-term ecological sustainability, and I am afraid I will not be here long enough to see that crisis through. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills5533r636Billsr635Billsr637Billsr633Billsr6345533Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Minchin:That these bills be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)10:54:005533Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the government's package of telecommunications bills, of which the main thrust is the full privatisation of Telstra. We in the Labor Party have consistently opposed any privatisation of Telstra, going right back to 1996.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—1995.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—When you proposed the bill in the parliament. No-one else has proposed a bill to privatise Telstra. The present government was the first one to put a bill into this parliament to propose the privatisation of Telstra.Since the first bill appeared, we have been unequivocal in our opposition to any privatisation of Telstra. In 1996, on the traded vote of Senator Colston, who was offered the job of being then Deputy President of the Senate, the coalition was able to achieve its objective of the one-third privatisation of Telstra. When the full privatisation was put before the parliament just before the last election, Senator Colston voted against it, so the bill for the full privatisation was defeated.The issues we in the opposition raised in opposing the one-third privatisation, with the support of the Democrats and the Greens, are still relevant today. One of the issues we raised during the inquiry into the one-third privatisation of Telstra was the fact that the government was demonstrably undervaluing the asset. I remember evidence given by Professor Quiggan which was laughed at by government senators on the committee at the time. The minister, Senator Alston, attempted to discredit Professor Quiggan when the professor said he thought the full value of Telstra would be at least between $55 billion and $60 billion, therefore one-third would be around $20 billion plus. It was argued that he did not know what he was talking about. `He is ideologically opposed to privatisation. He would say that, wouldn't he?' were the remarks made by the minister and by government senators on the committee.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Remember what he said about the Commonwealth Bank?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—He has subsequently been proven to be absolutely correct. The government privatised one-third of Telstra for about $14 billion. That $14 billion is now worth double—$28 billion. The government gave away the people's asset at a loss of about $14 billion. It was the biggest loss of government assets that I know of in the history of Federation.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You've forgotten about the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—It was pointed out to the government at the time that you were underselling, even if you wanted to proceed with the privatisation. But the government wanted to make sure that those who bought the shares, including foreign owners—those overseas who were guaranteed allocation of one-third of the shares from the one-third privatised—got their shares. Also foreign stockbroking companies—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You sold Qantas to British Airways, you hypocrite!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senator Campbell will withdraw—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—This is the bloke who sold Qantas to British Airways, Madam Acting Deputy President. I cannot believe the breathtaking hypocrisy of this. The Labor Party sold Qantas to British Airways.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, you will resume your seat and withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ian Campbell, you are persistently interjecting. You will not use that word.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—It is quite clear that the government, led by the parliamentary secretary, is extremely agitated and obviously embarrassed. The louder the noise the Parliamentary Secretary makes indicates the weaker the case the government has for full privatisation. At the one-third privatisation we had a guarantee that a third of the shares would be sold and allocated to overseas interests. Overseas stockbroking companies made millions and millions of dollars selling. On a number of occasions we were told by the minister that we had to get overseas expertise into the shareholding of running Telstra; that is why one-third was allocated. So what did we find? A day after they got the shares and the price went up, those interests in America sold their shares and made a killing. They weren't interested in providing expertise in improving the telecommunications system in Australia. They took their profit in a day and disappeared forever.This government's administration of the process was shameful. Not only did they allow for the diddling of the Australian public—by $14 billion—but also they allowed foreign interests to walk off with a capital profit in 24 hours. Now, in the process to sell the whole lot of Telstra, we find in the bill that up to two per cent of the value of the sale can go in fees—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you will resume your seat. Senator Campbell, you are persistently interjecting. I understand that there is some heat around this debate and I am being as tolerant as I can be. I didn't draw your attention to your use of another related word but I will not accept the use of the word `hypocrite'. Whatever your views are, you are not permitted under standing orders to accuse the senator of that in this place. Will you please withdraw again and will you desist from using that word in this place?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: my understanding was that Senator Campbell did not actually refer to Senator Schacht as a hypocrite on this occasion; he referred to the opposition as being `a bunch of hypocrites'. I understood that you could be accused of being unparliamentary not when you referred to a group of people but only when you referred to one person. But I am happy to accept your guidance on that matter.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It just shows how ridiculous the semantics of this debate can be in terms of the use of certain language. I know that the use of the singular in reference to one senator is not acceptable. The use of the plural for all senators is apparently blurred. Clearly, anyone listening to this debate will say: haven't we got better things to do with our time than to engage in such semantics? I will refer that question to Madam President. But it would be helpful if we could pursue the debate, as I am sure the government is anxious to do.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I will not delay the Senate because it is not in the government's interests, but I think the issue that you are going to refer is a wise one to refer. Obviously interjections are out of order, but perhaps Senator Schacht could reduce the interjections if he were to at least canvass within the debate—an important part of the debate—where he sees the difference between selling 25 per cent of Qantas to British foreign interests and this bill limiting foreign ownership to less than 12 per cent. I see hypocrisy in that. I think Senator Schacht could address that matter. I will then certainly cease interjecting.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, you are aware that that is a debating point and not a point of order. Could we continue without interjections and without debate over the use of particular words?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The government is clearly sensitive on this issue of Telstra. They know it is unpopular, particularly in rural Australia. At the last federal election two senators from the National Party lost their seats. Two parties, further to the right than the government on some issues, on this issue campaigned against them. The One Nation party opposed the privatisation of Telstra. One of the reasons? That party, unfortunately, got a lot of support in rural Australia. So we know why the government is sensitive about it.I want to return to the issue of the value of Telstra. The government under the arrangements in this bill have said that up to two per cent of the gross proceeds of what they get from the sale can go as fees and charges to the stockbroking companies and the institutional and financial advisers who are going to be in charge of the privatisation process. If the two-thirds is sold for the price which the market now values it at, at around $50 billion plus, that means that two per cent, over $1 billion, could be available to stockbroking firms and financial advisers both inside and outside Australia.A billion dollars. How many hospitals would that build? How many aged care centres would that improve? How many high schools would that improve? How many research centres at universities would that build? All of those things could be done with a billion dollars. But no, this government wants to give it to its mates in the financial sector. No wonder that group is cheering in the newspapers every day, saying: `We support the privatisation of Telstra.' They want to get their hands in the public till and get their fees and charges, worth up to a billion dollars, in the process. I think all ordinary Australians would agree that there is a better way to spend a billion dollars of the public's assets than giving it in fees and charges to the stockbroking community, including international stockbrokers.The issue here is about what we see as our telecommunications system in a country the size of Australia, with 18 million people sparsely spread across this massive continent. We are a lucky country in that we have a continent to ourselves, but it is a sparsely populated continent. The opposition would say that all Australians, wherever they live, having adequate access to reasonable telecommunications is a fundamental right, not something that governments or the community can choose not to provide.We all know that in the 21st century if you do not have access, wherever you are, to up-to-date communications systems, you will be disadvantaged socially and economically. A phrase that has been used before is that, in the next century, there will be groups of people who will be information rich and information poor. There will be new terminology for the definition of poverty.We have to ensure that all Australian citizens, wherever they are, are not accidentally made poor by being prohibited from having access to the latest communications systems. In a country of our size, with only 18 million people, that is a big ask with respect to delivery. If you let the free market decide it alone, it will mean that Sydney, Melbourne and the other capital cities will have the up-to-date system but the rural and outback areas will not, or they will only get it if a higher price is charged which will make it uneconomic for them to use, whether it is for business or for social communication. We in the opposition believe that this is a fundamental issue about keeping Australia together. If you do not have a communications system that can provide that equally to all, you disadvantage some citizens. This is an issue of equity as much as it is an issue of economics or privatisation.Some people claim that because we have a competitive market in communications it is therefore impossible to have public ownership. We in the opposition have never subscribed to that view. We believe that the communications system has been improved for all Australians by allowing competition—setting up rules that allow other people to compete with Telstra. But we know that, if you remove Telstra from public ownership, in the long run there will be no-one there at the behest of the public to provide the service to all Australians. That is why maintaining Telstra in public ownership is so important. All Australians, each day of their lives, need to have access to the telecommunications network that Telstra built as an investment when it was fully government owned, on behalf of all Australian people.Other public enterprises in the past have been privatised. The issue of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas has been raised. The fundamental difference is that Qantas provides a service, on a daily basis, which fewer than two or three per cent of Australians regularly use. Qantas is not an operation—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Two million frequent fliers in this country.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—But I have to say that because of the way in which the civil aviation market works, there are plenty of other opportunities in other companies. Qantas does not provide the service every day that Telstra provides to every citizen in this country. It is the same with the Commonwealth Bank: it has only about 20 per cent of the financial market. Eighty per cent of Australians choose not to use it. Eighty per cent of Australians have to use Telstra's network at some stage each day when they make a phone call, even if they are going through Optus or one of the other competitors. Overwhelmingly, they have to interconnect to Telstra's network.Often in these debates in recent times, with the ideology of this government, public interest seems to be given a great big miss. Public interest is the issue that we in this parliament should always be fundamentally concerned about. It is in the public interest to hold Telstra in majority public ownership.We have accepted that one-third has gone. We accepted at the last election that we will not be able to buy back that one-third; it will stay in private ownership. But we know that, as soon as you give away majority ownership and remove the right of the minister to use the power to direct Telstra in the public interest, Telstra will shift to a different form of operation. It will shift to an operation driven only by profit. That is what a privately owned company is about. The issue of providing public interest is not high in its priorities. And why should it be? That is the difference between the private and the public sectors.If you are a farmer on the western plains of New South Wales or in the mid-north of South Australia, your public interest, your economic interest, is to ensure that in the future you have access to the best telecommunications system which everyone else is using. If we want to be a clever, modern country, that is what we must have. They know; that is why there is such strong opposition in the rural areas of Australia to the privatisation of Telstra. That is why some members of the coalition government who represent those outback areas are strongly opposed to the privatisation of Telstra. Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy, and Mrs De-Anne Kelly, the member for Dawson, representing outback areas of Queensland, are on the record as saying that they oppose the privatisation of Telstra. When they are asked why they oppose it, they say, `We know what will happen: the service will get worse, the costs will go up, people will lose their jobs and the service will be reduced.' They also say that, overwhelmingly, their constituents who vote for them to represent them in this parliament do not want them to vote for Telstra's privatisation.On this occasion, the view overwhelmingly in the bush cannot be ignored. There are enough difficulties in the economic future of regional and rural Australia without running the risk of reducing the one area of service that provides an opportunity for these areas to have an economic future—that is, access to the full, modern communications system. We do not want to take that risk. The government is willing to take that risk because it is ideologically obsessed with this issue and wants to go to full privatisation.The government has said it will have some form of private inquiry into or review of services to the bush before privatisation proceeds. I am not sure whether a further sale of 16 per cent is covered by this review, or whether the review will automatically take place even before 16 per cent is sold. That is unclear. At the moment, maybe the government is negotiating with Independent senators about that. What they have put up here, as we had last time, is a joke. The review would take place and make comments, but it would not hold up the privatisation process—that will take place anyway. It is already in the budget papers, before this legislation has been passed. All the budget estimates and outlays for the next four years are predicated on the full privatisation of Telstra.So the government has made its intention clear. Any review of the services provided by Telstra is irrelevant according to the budget papers. There will be a very interesting discussion in the estimate hearings in the next two weeks about how the government can put those estimates in without the review being conducted and without any outcome being known. It is a charade and most people in rural and regional Australia know it. Most ordinary Australians know it. Most ordinary Australians, even those who own shares, do not want a majority of Telstra sold. They want to keep it in public ownership because they know that privatisation now means three things: increased charges, reduced services and a loss of jobs. That is what the sale of one-third of Telstra did. Something like 25,000 jobs went out the window. There was no excuse made by Mr Blount and others that this is the outcome in order to make a more competitive Telstra—to meet the challenge of providing a competitive service to improve profit. The profit is already substantial. The profit should remain year in, year out—going back to the bottom line of the budget—to provide increased services. We announced that policy at the last election.The ordinary members of our community know deep in their souls that to sell all of Telstra would be a fraud on their public interest. In this Senate, we have to be very careful how we vote—that we do not allow Australia's greatest national asset to be sold off at a whim to meet the ideological obsessions of this government.We have been told that there is privatisation occurring in many countries. That is true. But I note that, although a lot of countries have sold a part of their telecommunications companies, many of them are reluctant to sell the lot. Many of them are still holding a majority of those companies in public owner ship. Most of them in Western Europe, with a couple of exceptions, still have in one form or another public influence or public majority ownership. They know their own people do not want it. They know that there is a risk to the public interest if you sell the lot because communications, telecommunications and all the new systems are fundamentally going to organise and affect the way our societies are run. Therefore, the opposition maintains its unequivocal opposition to any further sale of Telstra. We have opposed it from when the legislation first appeared in this place in 1996, and we continue to oppose it. I hope again on this occasion there is a majority in the Senate to oppose this very awful bill.5538The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)10000PON/A10—Before calling the next speaker in this debate, I want to read into the Hansard a section from chapter 10 of Odger's Australian Senate Practice , in relation to clarification of the use of certain words in this place. I still abide by my previous comment that the matter should be referred to Madam President because I think there are some inconsistencies in the way we deal with the use of certain words in this place. I refer honourable senators to page 222, chapter 10. The paragraph says:It is sometimes suggested that it is not disorderly to use offensive words against groups of members of either House as distinct from individually named members. There is no basis for this suggestion in the rules of the Senate. On the contrary, offensive words against a group of members of either House may be regarded as a worse offence than directing such words to an individual member.This is as a result of rulings given by President Givens in 1916, President Sibraa in 1991 and 1993, and President Beahan in 1995. So clearly this question has been around for many years. I draw that to the attention of all honourable senators.11:19:005538Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We are now coming to the concluding parts of the second reading debate on a package of bills dealing with Telstra. The most significant of the five bills in the package is the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . This is the bill that sells Telstra and privatises what is an essential part of Australia's national infrastructure. This bill contains the provisions which enable 16 per cent of Telstra to be sold, an inquiry to be held and, subject to the findings of that inquiry, the balance of Telstra—the other 51 per cent of Telstra that would not be in public ownership—to be put on the auction block.We are coming to the point of no return with this bill. Once we go beyond this bill, if it is carried, Telstra inevitably and inexorably will go to full private ownership because the so-called device of the inquiry is a flawed device. No-one with any credibility believes that that device will result in there being proper pause, proper consideration and a proper decision that Telstra should not be sold. It is seen by everyone, and reasonably, that it is a device to get over the objections of the National Party and to nonetheless achieve the government's goal of full private ownership for Telstra.You would have to be very credible—indeed, you would have to be very gullible—to believe that that device was anything other than a device for the full sale of Telstra. The bloke that tried to sell me the Sydney Harbour Bridge the other day—the guy with slicked back hair in the white suit, the black shirt and the red tie—is about as credible on the subject of selling me the Sydney Harbour Bridge as the government is on selling to the community of Australia that Telstra would not go into full private ownership if this bill were passed.As far as this debate over Telstra is concerned, we have arrived at the point of no return, and because of that I want to briefly summarise the main reasons why the Australian Labor Party has consistently stood four square in opposition to the full sale of Telstra. We did so and made it a part of our party platform at the last federal election. We do not need to be kept honest; we are honest. By pursuing this goal, there is no-one here who can describe us as bastards because we are consistent and principled in this debate.There are three points that need to be put on the record by way of emphasis—they are on the record now. Senator Bishop and others in this debate have articulated the Labor Party position with great care and considerable persuasion over the course of this debate. Stephen Smith, the Labor Party's spokesperson on communications, has done so consistently in the other chamber and publicly for the whole of the time since the last election when this matter has been subject to political scrutiny and consideration in Australia.The three reasons why the Australian Labor Party opposes the full sale of Telstra, and indeed the selling down to 49 per cent of Telstra—that is, an additional sale of another 16 per cent—are these. Firstly, Telstra is a fundamental and important part of Australia's national infrastructure. It needs to be in public ownership. Put it in full private ownership and you remove from the nation an opportunity to build on a fundamental part of our national infrastructure. Secondly, since the partial privatisation of Telstra, service levels that Telstra has provided the Australian community around this nation, most importantly in Tasmania, have fallen consistently and hard. Thirdly, Telstra is a contributor to the national economy in both its efficient operation and as a payer of dividends to the national budget and the government which can then be dispersed to the community for the national good.There is a two-card trick here. The government is proposing a bonus system and has announced that when it sells Telstra it will provide these bonuses to the community. The superior proposition is that of Labor. During the election, we announced a Telstra reward scheme. The difference between the two points of view is that if you sell the farm you make a quid and you distribute some of that to the community, but if you keep the farm and keep a productive, ongoing entity, you have a continuous income stream which you can divert in perpetuity for the national good. Balance a one-off hit against a continuing benefit: that is the difference between our two proposals. In summary: national important infrastructure, we want service levels to go up—to go north, not south—and we want to ensure that there is a continuing benefit to the national good, not a one-off hit.When these bills come before the chamber for the vote at the second reading stage, my colleague Senator Bishop will be asking that the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 come to an independent vote, not a cognate vote. He will be asking that for the very strong reason that we in the Australian Labor Party intend to vote against it. We want to be recorded in the annals of the Senate as voting against it because that is our position. We hope to persuade this chamber that it should join us in voting down this bill. As far as the other bills in this package are concerned, we are on the record about those—we will be voting for them.Let me make a few supporting remarks about what I have just now put to the chamber, the three reasons for our opposition: the important and fundamental part of national infrastructure that Telstra represents; the importance of keeping service standards up and not, as happens in privatisation, forcing service standards down to the lowest common denominator and particularly dudding the bush and regional Australia; and maintaining an in-perpetuity reward to the Australian community, not a one-off bribe that the government wants.Taking the first question first, the important part of Australia's national infrastructure, in many respects this is a self-evident argument. You only have to consider the significance to industry, to the commercial activities of this nation and to the heartbeat of our economy to understand the significance to economic growth of an efficient communication service like Telstra. But it is wider than that. The Labor Party would particularly identify the human dimension of the importance of Telstra as a service, not as a profit taker; that is, it puts the Australian community in touch with one another. It brings families together, is part of our social life and is fundamental to the wellbeing and social intercourse of this nation. In private ownership, where it is run for a profit and a return to shareholders, then that becomes the ruling ethic, not the service which is necessary for such an essential part of national infrastructure.Concerning the service levels, what we forecast when the original privatisation bill came before the chamber has in fact occurred. The government will obfuscate, the government will juggle the figures, the government will justify Mark Twain's adage that there are `Lies, damn lies and statistics' by pretending that, as best it can present it, the service levels are retained at superior levels under the privatisation banner. Anyone who takes the time to examine the facts will see that the truth is they have declined significantly and the worse hit segment of Australia is regional and rural Australia, that part of this nation which this government proclaims ritually—like a mantra—at question time in this chamber that it is concerned about. Certainly, it is concerned about it. It is concerned to dud it, if its performance on Telstra is any guide.Importantly, we want to see the service component of Telstra remain enshrined. You can do that, as the government will now say, by providing particular provisions in the Telstra bill which will ensure that that occurs, and you can do it by regulating that that occurs.But what is the empirical evidence here? The evidence is of decline and of scarcer and less reliable services to the bush—scarcer and less reliable services and a slower turnaround time in meeting service demands for regional and rural Australia. That is the record and, whichever way you cut it, that is the final conclusion in terms of the service provision of Telstra. It is not surprising that is the case because what we have here is an inherent contradiction. We have an inherent contradiction that an entity which is partly privatised has making a profit for its shareholders as its ruling objective. An entity in those terms will always aim to maximise the bottom line and the provision of return to the shareholders. That is a definition of private enterprise—to do that—but in doing that, you exploit the most profitable routes and you cut back on the unprofitable routes in order to get a bigger return for redistribution to the shareholders, keep the share price up and encourage a greater dividend to shareholders.We are taking that entity and applying it to a service industry that should provide the same level of service right across the economy. You cannot take oil and water, mix them together and say that what you have got is something that works. As long as you have got a degree of private ownership and protection for minority shareholders in our Corporations Law, as we have and as we appropriately should have, you have got an entity—whatever the provisions in its act are—that will seek to maximise profit and, to do so, will withdraw from maximising services. That is the essential contradiction and that is why, empirically, the truth is that, since the partial privatisation of Telstra, service provisions in the unprofitable areas have declined. That is why I said inexorably they will continue to do so.Turning to the final of Labor's three key points: the question of reward to the Australian community. The Swedes have a saying, `Is it better to slaughter the cow or to milk it?' They have that saying when they debate what is the best way of receiving the greatest outcome for their domestic economy; when they debate whether or not particular industries should be privatised; and when they debate how they balance that against public obligation—is it better to slaughter the cow or to milk it? We are very much in the `milk it' category; we are not in the `slaughter it' category. If you slaughter the Telstra cow, you can sell the meat and make a quid and perhaps invest that money in some community services, but that is the end of it. If you milk the cow, you can get an ongoing revenue stream which will benefit the community and benefit your enterprise.The reason why we are strongly in this camp is that Telstra pays an annual dividend and, as long as Telstra is in public ownership, it will continue to pay that dividend. That dividend can then be distributed to the community on an ongoing basis; not a one-off hit. I know the government has tried to blind the Australian community by taking the bribe route rather than the ongoing dividend route. If you take the current assessed values of Telstra you would say that all up it is a $80 billion concern. Selling 16 per cent of it would probably yield in the market somewhere around $25 billion to $30 billion. How much are they going to give back to the Australian community? Well, out of $25 billion to $30 billion, they are going to give back to the community $671 million—that is the so-called benefit to the community—and they are going to use the rest of it for government revenue.Even it you believe the bribe route, this is a pretty pallid form of bribe in terms of what is coming back to the Australian community. But how do they hide that? They hide it by saying, `Well, look, there are five areas in which we are going to give this money back.' They spread a little jam a long way to pretend that everyone is going to get a benefit but, when you actually look at it, the total value of that benefit is infinitesimal compared to the total return to the government. This is a way of blinding people by nominating five different areas, which makes it seem that everyone is going to get a slice of the pie. What they do not tell you is that the slice of the pie is a very thin, narrow, wafer-like slice anyway and nothing like what a government that actually believed what it said would do if it was sincere, genuine and honest with the community about distributing that dividend. Compare that to the ongoing revenue stream that Labor supports and you can see in a trice how effective our approach to managing this major public asset is.I conclude by again summarising the reasons why Labor opposes this bill—the reasons stated by my colleague Senator Bishop back when this debate started in March—the reasons for Labor opposing the further privatisation of Telstra. I have named three reasons; there are probably four, the fourth one being this is the point of no return.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—You said that last time.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes, I am summarising and I am glad that you are listening. Because you are listening, I can direct my remarks to you.Senator Carr interjecting—UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order, Senator Carr, interjections are disorderly and they are more disorderly when you are not in your own seat, so I would ask you please to refrain.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The government knows that when you jump off into the abyss—if this bill is carried—inevitably, as night follows day, privatisation of Telstra becomes 100 per cent, not 49 per cent. The so-called review is simply a blind to lull people into believing that somehow you are considering the issues when this will be the greatest piece of a con job that we have seen. That would be the first reason. Secondly, this is a nationally important part of Australia's infrastructure. Thirdly, under the partial privatisation, service levels have declined, particularly in regional and rural Australia—notably in Tasmania. Under full privatisation, Telstra will continue to go south; we want it to go north—we want service levels to improve. Maintaining public ownership is a way of doing that because it does not conflict with the profit motive in the same way. Fourthly, the Telstra reward scheme that we announced at the last election ensures an ongoing benefit to Australia, not a one-off bribe which will leave Australians gasping as the losers at the end of the day.11:37:005541Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The legislation that we are dealing with at the present moment does envisage the full sale of Telstra. In other words, there are provisions in this legislation which are designed to lead to the full sale of Telstra. Let me make it perfectly clear, as I have done to the government and to the public: I am not prepared to vote for the full privatisation of Telstra. I do not intend to support any move that would see majority control pass from public hands to private hands, and I hope that the Senate would not. How this will be done I am not too sure. As far as I can see, the best way to do it would be to excise that part of the legislation completely. Leaving that aside, the question then arises as to whether there should be an additional partial sale of 16 per cent up to the 49 per cent level. There are a number of issues to be considered. If all things are equal after those issues have been considered, then the decision is easier to make.The question has just been raised by Senator Cook about the dividend stream issue—the question of debt reduction versus the dividend stream. I have been very interested in this subject for some considerable time, but the latest advice that I have in this matter I am happy to share with the Senate. The advice that I have is as follows: at the close of business on Friday, 21 May 1999 Telstra shares were worth $7.55 each. That value is one-sixth of Telstra at $16.2 billion. I am not sure where Senator Cook got his $25 billion from. Allowing deductions for selling costs and discounts to encourage take-up, the proceeds may be in the order of $15 billion. That would save $889.5 million in annual interest costs based on the 10-year bond rate of 5.93 per cent at close of business on Friday, 21 May.Against that, Telstra dividends of around $300 million per annum would be forgone based on the dividend paid, 14c, over the last 12 months. On an earning per share measure, which Professor John Quiggin would prefer, the government would miss out on $534 million. Shareholders in Telstra can also expect their earnings to grow by at least 10 per cent per annum based on recent experience. Might I interpolate here: it has been suggested to me that is rather an overconfident prediction but it may not be. If that continued to be the case into the future, the dividends forgone through the sale of Telstra shares would be equal to the interest savings on government debt in 11.4 years. A number of questions flow from that as to whether or not in the sale of Telstra, or this further 16 per cent, there were better ways of dealing with this matter, given that scenario.There have been a number of questions raised, and I will go through them briefly. For example, the effect of the Telstra restructuring on jobs and employment in various areas, including regional areas; the performance of Telstra; the question of decision making, that is, where those decisions are made—I have particular concerns so far as Tasmania's decision making is concerned; and the power and influence of the government over a 51 per cent public owned organisation, and so on.Let me deal with, first of all, the question of jobs. Telecommunications is a very high growth area, both in capital and labour. We all know that. Telstra is a significant employer, but as the industry becomes more capital intensive through such technological changes as the elimination of manual exchanges—they are long gone—and the reduction in dependence on traditional copper wire infrastructure, it has become obvious that employment growth will ease or may even decline over time.A lot of allegations have been made which have concerned me about the question of its effect on jobs—whether or not the partial privatisation has caused the employment shifts and the restructure in Telstra. I also sought independent advice on that, and the bottom line of that independent advice was that the predominant influences on Telstra employment have been the impact of deregulation and the labour shedding effects of technological change.To those on the Labor side who have said, `Oh no, all of this is the result of partial privatisation, of 33 per cent privatisation,' I respectfully say: that is not accurate. You are missing the main ball game if you are dealing with it on that basis; it is best if you sit down and try to get the best you can out of the deregulatory environment which, as I recall, was a decision of the previous Labor government.Let me go to the question of employment in the telecommunications services industry in my state of Tasmania. I have figures from February 1997, which is the start of the first year after the float, and February 1999. The figure for employment in telecommunications services in Tasmania in February 1997 was something like 1,100. The figure as at February 1999 was 1,900. I think that is a result of getting down and trying to get the best out of this environment. I acknowledge that there have been considerable changes within the organisation and that deregulation has caused many Telstra employees to make career and lifestyle changes which are not easy and which do concern us. Some of these employees have of course welcomed the packages, but others have not. Nevertheless, there is considerable disruption and, indeed, anxiety.I have been carefully monitoring the situation. I have had meetings with the senior management of Telstra in order to minimise job losses. I suggest that you go and compare what has happened in Tasmania, the percentage of job losses there, with any other state on the mainland. I have also been urging Telstra management and the government to create new job opportunities and, most importantly, to cushion as much as possible the impact on employees and their families. It is also of concern to me that deregulation has led to the transfer of executive positions from Tasmania and that many important management decisions affecting Telstra are now not made in Tasmania but in Melbourne or elsewhere. As honourable senators will know, Tasmania is an appendage of rural Victoria under the new set-up. The biggest organisation within Telstra, the Telstra Commercial and Consumer Organisation, is presently divided into regions, and the Tasmanian and country Victorian regions are presently combined into one region. I cannot for the life of me see why the government cannot see the commonsense of having a separate region for the state of Tasmania, particularly in respect of this large commercial and consumer unit. I think that is a reasonable thing. I have put that to both Telstra and the government, and I think that is a matter that should be determined irrespective of this legislation.On the question of jobs, let me say to the Senate: have a look at the departments which are fully owned by the Commonwealth. Look at what is happening there. There is outsourcing going on—is that as a result of privatisation? Of course we rail against it, but nothing happens. There is a considerable amount of outsourcing and thus a reduction in jobs or no increases in jobs in a whole range of departments. That is happening in Telstra as well, and would have happened had there been no partial privatisation.Despite the upsets and the anxieties within the work force of Telstra in Tasmania, I want to stand here and congratulate those employees. I am compelled to give recognition to the achievements of Telstra's staff throughout Tasmania in meeting some very significant milestones. They have made considerable progress towards meeting its obligations to Tasmanian customers and, in the process, additional jobs have been created. I refer here to a number of achievements, including 90 per cent ISDN deployment; improved mobile phone coverage on the east coast, the Tasman Peninsula, the Huon Valley, Hobart surrounds, Deloraine and Sheffield; the expansion of operator assisted services in Burnie; and the establishment of a new national call centre in Hobart, providing an additional 140 jobs.I am concerned about the drift of very skilled jobs from Tasmania. I do hope that Telstra and the government look at this and acknowledge that Tasmania is an intelligent island. It does have the capability to perform a large amount of work, if you have a look at it. It is a congenial place to live, and it would be desirable from the point of view of not only Tasmania but also those who might come to the state and those within the state who would be employed in those areas.There has been much talk about the provision of Internet and data services to the bush—to regional areas—and I firmly support any measures designed to improve these services. Under the universal service obligation, all Australians, wherever they live or work, have a legal right to reasonable access on an equitable basis to a standard telephone service and payphones. The number of people using the Internet in country areas is only half that of those using it in the cities. I am not convinced that the provision of better access through improved technology will change that, as I suspect that there are other factors at play, such as demographics. However, I respect the right of all Australians to have access to new technologies, and the more that this can be advanced, by whatever reasonable means, the better.There is quite a lot that I need to say, but my time is coming to a close. One needs to wonder whether a 51 per cent holding as against a 66⅔ per cent holding would affect the influence of government on the carrier. I am aware, of course, that certain other countries have 51 per cent holdings, and I have not heard that that has limited the power of their governments to exercise influence. That was a matter which was of concern to me but I am—again, with independent advice—convinced that going from 66⅔ per cent to 51 per cent is not going to affect the power of the government to influence, and the power of direction, of course, is in this legislation. Not that any government of any colour has given directions to Telstra for years and years. It may well be that it needs to be done. With 51 per cent, the organisation would need to pass public scrutiny, including scrutiny of the parliament, estimates committees and so on.Whatever is the case before us, I need to consider a number of things. If all things are equal, then the Senate does come into play. We are a house of review. There has been a lot said about the Senate recently. I did hear that one of the things that is being said about the Senate is that it is no longer a states house. If all things are equal on those matters that I have raised, then I intend to exercise my vote as a member of this chamber as a states house.11:56:005544Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Once again a debate on Telstra has provided an opportunity for an endless exchange of views and arguments. I think one can safely say that the majority of the arguments which have been presented by non-government senators opposing the legislation have one thing in common: they have nothing to do with the ownership of Telstra. Time and again there has been a failure to provide any evidence of a link between issues raised and the ownership of Telstra. The competition regime of which they complain was put in place by none other than Mr Beazley when he was the relevant minister. He was the one responsible for opening up the marketplace, introducing new players and generally putting much more pressure on Telstra to gets its house in order and to become more efficient and competitive in world terms.There is nothing new about complaints about Telstra's quality of service. In fact, when Senator Boswell and I were in North Queensland last week—before he actually tried to spike my drink—it became abundantly clear that many people have had complaints about Telstra for many years. I do not think that ought to be seen as a reflection on the current administration but rather as a reflection of the frustration of people, particularly outside the metropolitan areas, who want the best possible degree and range of services and have generally until now had to wait in the queue until these benefits, readily available in metropolitan areas, trickled down.In fact, I found some quotations from back in the 1970s where the union movement was out there accusing Telstra of being the usual monster: putting profits before people and neglecting quality of service issues. It has always been thus. Telstra has always been the butt of criticism, and in a number of respects that is perfectly understandable. Ever since we have had an independent regulator in the shape of, originally, Austel, there have been quality of service reports released which have indicated that Telstra's performance in a number of critical rural areas has not been what the public in general would expect. But, as Senator Harradine rightly points out, many of these problems and developments occur because of technological change and because of the need to improve productivity performance levels and a concern on the part of Telstra simply not to waste resources.We all know you have to get the balance right. We are particularly concerned to ensure that people in rural areas do get a good deal, and for the first time they are in a position to do that. For the first time, in part because of the technological opportunities that are opening up in the wake of what some might call the death of distance, it is now going to be increasingly possible to leapfrog, for rural areas to get immediate access to high speed digital data services and reap the full benefits of the 100 per cent digitalisation of local exchanges. To date the bush has really lacked that combination of technological opportunity and the wherewithal on the part of the carrier to put in place institutional arrangements to generate sufficient income to make a lot of these services commercially attractive. There will always be a USO regime, as we all know and understand and as is supported on all sides of the chamber, but without the capacity to deliver a social bonus of the magnitude that we took into the last election the bush would simply have missed out on a lot of those very important issues.I think that many people in the bush are still trying to come to terms with the fact that the Labor Party have never for a moment expressed any sympathy. They have never said, for example, `We urge the government to set up an RTIF but split it from Telstra.' They were simply opposed from the outset. They never at any stage conceded that the bush stood to benefit dramatically from those initiatives.Senator Mackay interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Here we go again. What is the Labor Party's attitude to the $671 million of social bonuses attached to the sale of Telstra? `We are ideologically opposed, therefore we don't care what the consequences are; we'll simply turn our backs on rural people.' As you sow so will you reap, but the fact remains that Telstra does not have the capacity and nor is it allowed to have the capacity to act uneconomically, ever since Mr Beazley made them subject, as a corporatised business, to the full rigour of the Corporations Law. Directors have their duties. Directors are required—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You have got the power to direct.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is an entirely different issue. If you want to go back to the old welfare days and say that we ought to be forcing Telstra to do things irrespective of whether they are commercially viable, then you run straight up against the Corporations Law.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It's like a USO. It's what the USO is there to do.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is not the basis on which Mr Beazley privatised Telstra. You had five years to give directions. You never did. The whole object of the exercise was to treat government business enterprises in a like manner to other commercial enterprises and to have them operate as fully commercially as possible. To the extent that the parliament needed to do uneconomic things, it could then do them by legislation and other means. That is why you have a USO. That is why you have untimed local calls. That is why we introduced a customer service guarantee. That is why you have price caps. That is why there is a whole series of market interventions designed to ensure that consumers are not left behind. But, time and again, all we get from the Labor Party is this mantra that they are opposed to privatisation. They see this as a good opportunity to pay back the union movement for all that they have done in getting these otherwise unemployable people into safe spots in the parliament. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that quality of service continues to rise. And it will, and if it does not then Telstra is under no illusions that the parliament will obviously want to take what action it can to improve those levels of service.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What will you do?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We would move in the parliament to introduce new legislative arrangements. But I imagine that, as always, you would fight them tooth and nail because you have no interest in doing that. What we have already in place is a whole range of measures. I think it is a breath of fresh air to have someone like the new CEO, Dr Switkowski, prepared to travel to some of the more remote areas of regional Australia—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—The most remote areas.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Places that have only been inhabited by the likes of Senator Boswell.Senator Mackay interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Mackay, you have already contributed to the debate and you will have a further chance at the committee stage, so I suggest that you remain silent until the minister has finished.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I do think it is an opportunity to take advantage of Dr Switkowski's new approach. There is no doubt, among all those who heard him, that he is very sincere in wanting to ensure that Telstra's reputation is as high as possible. He understands the concerns—many of them valid—that people have about getting access to services. Very interestingly, there was probably more emphasis on getting access to new technologies than there was to simply complaining about installations, faults and repairs. We know that that has been an area of deficiency in the past. That is why we introduced the new regime, tightened the penalties that applied after five days and gave a general power for wilful and persistent breach, to make Telstra liable to fines of up to $10 million. These are potentially draconian measures designed to leave, in this instance, Telstra—because it happens to be the only game in town at present in some of those areas, and certainly it is the universal service carrier—in no doubt that we are prepared to act, if necessary. But I am very confident that Dr Switkowski will ensure that these matters are sympathetically and speedily addressed.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Like the work management centre in Hobart?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You can rabbit on about work management as much as you like. It was interesting that even the opposition senators on the Senate committee concluded that Telstra's ownership is irrelevant to the adequacy of the regulatory regime. So I hope, that being the case, there will be a lot more bipartisanship in wanting to see improvements in the adequacy of the regulatory regime and the levels of quality of service.This legislation will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to rectify many of the problems that were canvassed in the Senate committee report: for example, the provision of services on King Island, which I think Senator Mackay might have referred to—$20 million of the social bonus is specifically allocated to services for remote and island communities. We began with the establishment of the Networking the Nation program from the first tranche of the sale and will continue with the social bonus from the second tranche. These are unique opportunities to inject funds into the telecommunications area and into the lifeblood of rural Australia that have never been available before and would never be made available again.Senator Carr interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You had every opportunity over 13 years to do something about the bush but you turned your back on all of those needs. You did not exercise any power of direction. You just simply said, `Too bad.' We do not think that is good enough. We see the opportunity here to do something very sensible. We do not accept the option of using the power of direction for ad hoc interventions. We reject the view that the government's shareholding should be used as the basis of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink approach to make Telstra do this or that. One of things that really scared the pants off the entire industry was Senator Schacht wandering around and saying, `If necessary, don't you worry. If we think that there are no services in areas of sensitivity—that is code, of course, for marginal seats—we will simply make sure that Telstra puts them in. We do not give a damn about profits. This is a big bad multinational and we will fix it right up, don't you worry.' He might have thought that played well at branch meetings and some of the few marginal rural seats that the Labor Party still holds, but it sent an absolute shiver down the spine of anyone with a responsible approach. I would be amazed if his successor even contemplated flirting with that sort of approach in public.We should all remember who decided to turn Telstra into a Corporations Law company: Mr Beazley and his cohorts back in 1991. We also reject the view that the taxpayers' interests are best served by our sitting on a large non-core asset such as Telstra. Telstra's dividends are not extra money to spend on wish lists. As you well know, they have always been available for general appropriations to meet essential services, to the extent that you argue that that money ought to be earmarked for telecommunications matters. In that case, you have an obligation to identify where else you would make the cuts.Quite clearly, we are concerned to ensure that the money is applied in the best possible manner. No-one should be under any illusions about the intensity of competition in this area. As a monopolist 10 years ago and as a company exposed to competition now as a voice carrier, Telstra suddenly finds the market shifting beneath its feet. Those who are not concentrating largely on mobile data services will probably find that they can be rendered irrelevant, irrespective of their size. That is why you are finding that even massive telcos in the US are coming together in mergers and joint ventures. Don't be under any illusions that somehow this will be an ongoing dividend stream which you can milk for recurrent purposes; it is not. It may well be that now is the best time to capitalise that dividend stream and ensure that the more rosy projections of future growth can be captured in the sale price.I have talked about the $671 million in savings through the social bonus program. Once again, that has been received with enormous enthusiasm in rural areas. The only thing that has surprised them is the fact that the Labor Party has been totally uninterested in the clear and obvious benefits that flow from untimed local calls in outer extended zones, continuous mobile coverage on major highways, broadcasting black spots and the roll-out of SBS. These are all absolutely essential initiatives which have been met with a total lack of interest by the Labor Party. I think we all know where the Labor Party stands on this issue.I note that Senator Bishop said during the debate that the government should keep Telstra in public ownership to retain the right to direct Telstra on matters of service and technology in rural Australia. The government is not able to use its majority ownership of Telstra for that purpose. Service and technology levels can be, and are being, addressed transparently through the regulatory regime and through measures such as the social bonus. We will always stand ready to take legislative and other action to ensure that minimum standards are met. Indeed, the whole approach we are taking in terms of expanding the USO to accommodate digital data capability is a classic example of how we are meeting the very genuine concerns expressed by Senator Harradine and others that the bush should not be denied access to new technologies. You know as well as we do that employment levels are unrelated to privatisation.Senator Mackay interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You well know that the downsizing of Telstra commenced long before privatisation was on the books in this country. You know that at that time the OECD considered that there was something like a 30 per cent gap between Australia's performance and world's best practice. You know that Telstra has an absolute obligation to its shareholders, whether they be private shareholders or the government, to make sure that it gets the best possible rate of return. Over and above that, it understands the rules of the game: governments will always reserve the right to have a legal and regulatory framework that puts consumers first. We have made no bones about that. We have said all along that maximising revenue from Telstra was not our main game in terms of privatisation. We remain very much committed to the opportunities that competition will provide to introduce new services and to keep forcing prices down as it has in recent years around the world. But we will not stop there if we feel there is a need to take further legislative or other action.In all of this debate, we have had the classic schizophrenia: Telstra was portrayed as an icon of the benefits of public ownership, kindly benevolent and rich, to be kept in public hands at all costs; on the other hand, it was portrayed as a ruthless market predator, indifferent to consumers and interested only in the almighty dollar. That has been a recurrent approach. We reject both of those ways of portraying Telstra. The truth is that Telstra is neither a welfare fund nor a robber baron; it is a very large company in a cutting edge business which is critical to Australia's broad economic development.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—It is non-core, according to you!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I do not think you know what you are talking about there. The only people who distinguish between core and non-core in terms of Telstra are your good friends and colleagues, Mr Latham and Mr Tanner. Mr Beazley would be in it, of course, because he is weak enough to fall for anything. Time and again, Mr Keating wanted to hive off what he saw as non-core assets, whether that meant mobile phones or the Yellow Pages.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You said it was non-core.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I cannot help it if you are in urgent need of psychiatric attention.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Mackay, I have asked you to remain silent before, and I am asking you again.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I can give you an absolute assurance that I spend most of my time pointing out how absolutely central to the whole economy the telecommunications industry is.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Why did you call Telstra non-core then?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I have never used the term.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You said it was non-core earlier.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I have never used the term `non-core' in relation to Telstra. Go and have your ears cleaned out. It is not my fault if you are hard of hearing. I can assure you that there is no conceivable basis on which I would ever suggest that a company which is close to being the largest in Australia and runs one of the most successful businesses could ever be non-core. It is a ludicrous proposition. I accept your apology that you obviously misheard.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You said it was non-core in your election promises.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, non-core is what you say you could hive off as a compromise with the union movement to somehow keep the basic network in place. That is what it is all about.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Minister, if you could direct your remarks through the chair, that might save a little bit of the flow across the chamber.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes, that is a very good suggestion. I certainly understand Senator Harradine's concern about the locus of decision making and I also understand his concerns about the drift of skills from Tasmania. It is commendable that both the previous Premier, Tony Rundle, and the current Premier, Mr Bacon, understand the opportunity that Tasmania has to be another New Brunswick and to attract call centres, which have been a significant area of new employment opportunities. The whole notion of Tasmania as an intelligent island I think deserves a great deal of support.We certainly accept what Senator Harradine says about whether the capacity of the government to take action simply because it might have 51 per cent as opposed to 66 per cent will be affected. The fact is that, irrespective of ownership levels, we will always be vigilant to ensure that consumers' interests are properly protected and we will not hesitate to take further legislative and other action if that is necessary.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! I understand that there has been a request that the bills be divided for the purposes of voting on the second reading of these bills.12:16:005548Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I was not following that, Mr Acting Deputy President. I seek leave to ask a question.Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I wish to vote for the second readings of all the legislation. On the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , I wish to vote for the second reading, as did the opposition for the second reading of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, and then, of course, reserve my rights for later on.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Perhaps I could explain, Senator Harradine. The opposition requested that the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be voted on separately from the others, which we will put as a block. They have indicated that they would like to vote separately on the second reading of that bill. Therefore, I put the question that the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be read a second time.12:22:00The Senate divided. 0Abetz, 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.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.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.0Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. 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. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Knowles, S. C. Denman, K. J.MacGibbon, D. J. Hutchins, S.Tambling, G. E. J. Campbell, G.Vanstone, A. E. Bolkus, N.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000Harradine, Sen BrianThe PRESIDENT—Order! The question is that the remaining four bills in the package be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.5549TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS) BILL 1998The bill.12:25:005549Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and correction relating to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 and the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 . The memoranda and correction were circulated in the chamber on 24 May 1999.5549The CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN10000PON/A10—Before we consider the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 , I would like to make a statement. Certain government amendments in this bill have been drafted as requests. The government drafters have explained that, in relation to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 , this is because the amendments make it legally possible for increased amounts to be paid out of standing appropriations in other statutes, and, in relation to the Telecomunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill, because it is a bill imposing taxation.Section 53 of the Constitution, however, does not refer to amendments making it legally possible for increased amounts to be paid under other statutes, but refers to amendments which increase proposed charges or burdens on the people. The view that it should be reinterpreted as referring to legal possibilities has not been accepted by the Senate. The Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 is manifestly not a bill imposing taxation. It is a bill which, in the words of the explanatory memoranda accompanying the bill, makes minor amendments to the statute which imposes the levy and which does not make a change to the levy itself. The amendments will therefore be treated as amendments.12:27:005549Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4 and Nos 6 to 36 on sheet ER229, and Nos 1 to 2 on sheet ER227.(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 6), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the definition of approved digital data service plan in subsection 5(2); (ab) the definition of digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (ac) the definition of digital data service provider in subsection 5(2); (ad) the definition of draft digital data service plan in subsection 5(2);[Clause 2—digital data; commencement](2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 8), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) the definition of general digital data service area in subsection 5(2); (bb) the definition of general digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (bc) the definition of general digital data service provider in subsection 5(2);[Clause 2—digital data; commencement](3) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 15), after paragraph (g), insert: (ga) the definition of special digital data service area in subsection 5(2); (gb) the definition of special digital data service obligation in subsection 5(2); (gc) the definition of special digital data service provider in subsection 5(2);(4) Clause 4, page 3 (line 7), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) prescribed carriage services; and (d) digital data services.[Clause 4—digital data; simplified outline](6) Clause 5, page 4 (line 8), to page 5 (line 7), insert: approved digital data service plan means an approved digital data service plan under Division 4A of Part 2. digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. digital data service provider means: (a) a general digital data service provider; or (b) a special digital data service provider. draft digital data service plan means a draft digital data service plan under Division 4A of Part 2. general digital data service area has the meaning given by section 19B. general digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. general digital data service provider has the meaning given by section 26A. special digital data service area has the meaning given by section 19C. special digital data service obligation has the meaning given by section 19A. special digital data service provider has the meaning given by section 26A.[Clause 5—digital data; definitions](7) Clause 8, page 8 (line 13), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) prescribed carriage services; and (d) digital data services.[Clause 8—digital data; simplified outline](8) Clause 8, page 8 (line 17), at the end of paragraph (a), add "and the digital data service obligation".[Clause 8—digital data; simplified outline](9) Clause 8, page 8 (line 18), at the end of paragraph (b), add "and digital data service providers".[Clause 8—digital data; simplified outline](10) Clause 8, page 8 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (c), add "and digital data service plans".[Clause 8—digital data; simplified outline](11) Clause 8, page 8 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add "and digital data service charges".[Clause 8—digital data; simplified outline](12) Clause 9, page 9 (line 13), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) prescribed carriage services; and (iv) digital data services;[Clause 9—digital data; objects](13) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) the digital data service obligation described in section 19A should be fulfilled as efficiently and economically as practicable;[Clause 9—digital data; objects](14) Clause 9, page 9 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: (e) certain costs associated with fulfilling the digital data service obligation should be shared among carriers. [Clause 9—digital data; objects](15) Page 10 (after line 23), after clause 12, insert:12A Digital data services (1) For the purposes of this Act, a digital data service is: (a) a general digital data service (see subsection (2)); or (b) a special digital data service (see subsection (3)). General digital data service (2) For the purposes of this Act, a general digital data service is a carriage service that provides a digital data capability broadly comparable to that provided by a data channel with a data transmission speed of 64 kilobits per second supplied to end-users as part of the designated basic rate ISDN service. Special digital data service (3) For the purposes of this Act, a special digital data service is a carriage service that provides for a capability for the delivery of digital data to an end-user broadly comparable to the corresponding capability provided by a data channel with a data transmission speed of 64 kilobits per second supplied to end-users as part of the designated basic rate ISDN service. Designated basic rate ISDN service (4) For the purposes of this section, if: (a) immediately before 1 July 1997, Telstra supplied a basic rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) service; and (b) the service complied with any of the standards for ISDN services made by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI); the service is a designated basic rate ISDN service . Comparability of digital data capability (5) For the purposes of subsection (2), the determination of the comparability of the digital data capability of a carriage service is to be based solely on a comparison of the data transmission speed available to an end-user of the service.[Clause 12A—digital data; digital data services](16) Page 12 (after line 9), after clause 14, insert:14A Supply of digital data servicesGeneral digital data service (1) A reference in this Part to the supply of a general digital data service includes a reference to the supply of: (a) customer equipment of a kind specified in the regulations; and (b) other goods of a kind specified in the regulations; and (c) services of a kind specified in the regulations; where: (d) the equipment, goods or services, as the case may be, are for use in connection with the general digital data service; and (e) the supply complies with such requirements, restrictions or conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) may require that the supply of a specified kind of customer equipment is to be by way of hire. If those regulations impose such a requirement, this Part has effect, in relation to the customer equipment concerned, as if a reference to supply were a reference to supply by way of hire. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) may require that specified customer equipment is to be supplied on the basis that the customer concerned enters into a legally enforceable agreement containing such terms and conditions relating to the ownership, possession, location, disposal or use of the equipment, as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations. (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not, by implication, limit paragraph (1)(e).Special digital data service (5) A reference in this Part to the supply of a special digital data service includes a reference to the supply of: (a) customer equipment of a kind specified in the regulations; and (b) other goods of a kind specified in the regulations; and (c) services of a kind specified in the regulations; where: (d) the equipment, goods or services, as the case may be, are for use in connection with the special digital data service; and (e) the supply complies with such requirements, restrictions or conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (6) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (5)(e) may require that the supply of a specified kind of customer equipment is to be by way of hire. If those regulations impose such a requirement, this Part has effect, in relation to the customer equipment concerned, as if a reference to supply were a reference to supply by way of hire. (7) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (5)(e) may require that specified customer equipment is to be supplied on the basis that the customer concerned enters into a legally enforceable agreement containing such terms and conditions relating to the ownership, possession, location, disposal or use of the equipment, as are specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, the regulations. (8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not, by implication, limit paragraph (5)(e).[Clause 14A—digital data; supply of digital data services](17) Page 15 (after line 20), after Division 2, insert:Division 2A—Digital data service obligation19A Digital data service obligation (1) For the purposes of this Act, the digital data service obligation is the obligation: (a) to ensure that one or other of the following: (i) general digital data services; (ii) special digital data services; are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business; and (b) to ensure that general digital data services are reasonably accessible to at least 96% of the Australian population on an equitable basis; and (c) to ensure that special digital data services are reasonably accessible to the remainder of the Australian population on an equitable basis.General digital data service obligation (2) For the purposes of this Act, the general digital data service obligation is the obligation to ensure that general digital data services are reasonably accessible to all people in general digital data service areas on an equitable basis. (3) To the extent necessary to achieve the general digital data service obligation, it is part of that obligation to supply general digital data services to people in general digital data service areas on request.Special digital data service obligation (4) For the purposes of this Act, the special digital data service obligation is the obligation to ensure that special digital data services are reasonably accessible to all people in special digital data service areas on an equitable basis. (5) To the extent necessary to achieve the special digital data service obligation, it is part of that obligation to supply special digital data services to people in special digital data service areas on request.Supply of customer equipment or other goods or services (6) An obligation does not arise under subsection (3) in relation to particular equipment, goods or services the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(1) as the supply of a general digital data service if the customer concerned requests not to be supplied with the equipment, goods or services. (7) An obligation does not arise under subsection (5) in relation to particular equipment, goods or services the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(5) as the supply of a special digital data service if the customer concerned requests not to be supplied with the equipment, goods or services.Rebate system (8) The regulations may provide that: (a) an obligation that arises under subsection (3) in relation to particular customer equipment the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(1) as the supply of a general digital data service; or (b) an obligation that arises under subsection (5) in relation to particular customer equipment the supply of which is treated under subsection 14A(5) as the supply of a special digital data service; is taken to have been fulfilled by a person (in so far as the obligation relates to a particular customer) if: (c) the customer acquires or hires the equipment from a third person; and (d) the customer is entitled to a rebate from the first-mentioned person in respect of that acquisition or hire; and (e) the amount of the rebate is equal to the amount ascertained in accordance with the regulations; and (f) the liability to pay the rebate has been discharged; and (g) the entitlement to the rebate complies with such requirements, restrictions and conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations. (9) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (8)(g) may require that the customer be given the option of assigning the customer's right to the rebate to the third person. (10) Subsection (9) does not, by implication, limit subsection (8).19B General digital data service areas (1) The Minister may make a written determination that a service area ascertained in accordance with the determination is a general digital data service area for the purposes of this Act. The determination has effect accordingly. (2) A copy of a determination under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) The Minister must exercise the powers conferred by this section in a manner that is consistent with the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation.19C Special digital data service areas (1) The Minister may make a written determination that a service area ascertained in accordance with the determination is a special digital data service area for the purposes of this Act. The determination has effect accordingly. (2) A copy of a determination under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) The Minister must exercise the powers conferred by this section in a manner that is consistent with the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation.[Division 2A of Part 2—digital data; digital data service obligation](18) Page 22 (after line 11), after Division 3, insert:Division 3A—Digital data service providers26A Digital data service providers (1) The Minister may make a written declaration stating that a specified carrier is a general digital data service provider for a specified general digital data service area. Note: If a selection system has been determined under section 26C, a declara tion under this subsection must be consistent with the system. (2) The Minister may make a written declaration stating that a specified carrier is a special digital data service provider for a specified special digital data service area. Note: If a selection system has been determined under section 26D, a declaration under this subsection must be consistent with the system. (3) A declaration under subsection (1) or (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A declaration under this section: (a) takes effect: (i) if the declaration is the first declaration under subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be—on the date specified in the declaration; or (ii) in any other case—at the start of the next financial year after the one in which it is made; and (b) if it specifies a financial year at whose end it ceases to have effect—ceases to have effect at the end of that financial year, unless sooner revoked. This subsection has effect subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8). (5) A revocation of a declaration under this section takes effect: (a) if it specifies a financial year at whose end it is to take effect—at the end of that financial year; or (b) otherwise—at the end of the financial year in which it is made. This subsection has effect subject to subsections (6) and (7). (6) If: (a) a declaration (the original declaration ) is in force under subsection (1) in relation to a particular carrier; and (b) a fresh declaration is made under subsection (1); and (c) the fresh declaration is expressed to replace the original declaration with effect from a specified time; and (d) the fresh declaration specifies another carrier; and (e) the service area specified in the fresh declaration is the same as the service area specified in the original declaration; then: (f) the fresh declaration takes effect at that time; and (g) the original declaration ceases to have effect at that time. (7) If: (a) a declaration (the original declaration ) is in force under subsection (2) in relation to a particular carrier and in relation to a particular service area; and (b) a fresh declaration is made under subsection (2); and (c) the fresh declaration is expressed to replace the original declaration with effect from a specified time; and (d) the fresh declaration specifies another carrier; and (e) the service area specified in the fresh declaration is the same as the service area specified in the original declaration; then: (f) the fresh declaration takes effect at that time; and (g) the original declaration ceases to have effect at that time. (8) If: (a) a declaration is in force under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a particular carrier; and (b) at a particular time, the carrier ceases to hold a carrier licence; the declaration ceases to be in force at that time. (9) A declaration under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (10) A reference in this section to a carrier does not include a reference to a person of a kind declared by the regulations to be exempt from section 16.26B Effect of digital data service provider declaration (1) A digital data service provider in relation to a particular service area is a digital data service provider: (a) for that area; and (b) for each service area that is within that area. (2) For the purposes of this Part, a person in relation to whom a declaration is in force under subsection 26A(1) or (2) at any time during a financial year is a digital data service provider in relation to the financial year. (3) For the purposes of this Part, the areas for which a person is a digital data service provider are taken to be a single area. (4) A general digital data service provider for a general digital data service area must take all reasonable steps to fulfil the general digital data service obligation, so far as the obligation relates to that area. (5) A special digital data service provider for a special digital data service area must take all reasonable steps to fulfil the special digital data service obligation, so far as the obligation relates to that area.26C Selection system for general digital data service providers (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, determine a selection system for the purpose of selecting carriers to be general digital data service providers for specified general digital data service areas in relation to specified financial years. (2) A system so determined must require the selected carrier to have elected that: (a) an amount specified in the election will be the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned; or (b) a method of ascertaining an amount, being a method specified in the election, will apply for the purposes of determining the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned. (3) A system so determined may require an applicant for selection to give the Minister a copy of the document that the applicant would be required to give to the Minister under section 40A in the event that the applicant is successful. This subsection does not, by implication, limit subsection (1). (4) If a system has been determined under this section, the Minister must not exercise the powers conferred by subsection 26A(1) in a way that is inconsistent with the system. (5) This Part does not prevent a method mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) from being the same as a method that would have applied if the system concerned had not been determined. (6) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . 26D Selection system for special digital data service providers (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, determine a selection system for the purpose of selecting carriers to be special digital data service providers for specified special digital data service areas in relation to specified financial years. (2) A system so determined must require the selected carrier to have elected that: (a) an amount specified in the election will be the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned; or (b) a method of ascertaining an amount, being a method specified in the election, will apply for the purposes of determining the carrier's digital data cost for the financial year concerned. (3) A system so determined may require an applicant for selection to give the Minister a copy of the document that the applicant would be required to give to the Minister under section 40A in the event that the applicant is successful. This subsection does not, by implication, limit subsection (1). (4) If a system has been determined under this section, the Minister must not exercise the powers conferred by subsection 26A(2) in a way that is inconsistent with the system. (5) This Part does not prevent a method mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) from being the same as a method that would have applied if the system concerned had not been determined. (6) A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .26E Selection systems—information-gathering powers (1) If the Minister has reason to believe that a carrier or carriage service provider has information that is relevant to: (a) the exercise of the powers conferred on the Minister by subsection 26C(1) or 26D(1); or (b) the administration of a system determined under subsection 26C(1) or 26D(1); the Minister may, by written notice given to the carrier or provider, require the carrier or provider to give to the Minister, within the period and in the manner and form specified in the notice, any such information. (2) A carrier or carriage service provider must comply with a requirement under subsection (1).[Division 3A of Part 2—digital data; digital data service providers](19) Page 28 (after line 22), after Division 4, insert:Division 4A—Digital data service plans40A Digital data service provider must submit digital data service plan (1) A digital data service provider for a particular area must give the Minister a draft digital data service plan for that area. (2) The provider must give the Minister the plan within 90 days after the provider became a digital data service provider for that area.40B Digital data service plans A draft or approved digital data service plan for an area is a plan that sets out how a digital data service provider for that area will progressively fulfil: (a) if that area is a general digital data service area—the general digital data service obligation (in so far as the obligation relates to that area); or (b) if that area is a special digital data service area—the special digital data service obligation (in so far as the obligation relates to that area). Note: An approved digital data service plan is a draft digital data service plan that has been approved by the Minister.40C Replacement of approved digital data service plan If an approved digital data service plan (the original plan ) for an area is in force, a draft digital data service plan for the area may be expressed to replace the original plan. When the draft plan becomes an approved digital data service plan, the original plan ceases to be in force.40D Approval of draft digital data service plan by Minister (1) If a digital data service provider gives the Minister a draft digital data service plan, the Minister must: (a) approve the draft plan; or (b) refuse to approve the draft plan. (2) If the Minister approves the draft plan, the draft plan becomes an approved digital data service plan. (3) If the Minister refuses to approve the draft plan, the Minister may, by written notice given to the provider, direct the provider to give the Minister, within the period and in the terms specified in the direction, a fresh draft digital data service plan for the area concerned. The provider must comply with the direction.40E Public comment—draft plan (1) Before giving the Minister a draft digital data service plan under section 40D, a digital data service provider must: (a) publish a preliminary version of the draft plan and invite members of the public to make submissions to the provider about the preliminary version within a specified period; and (b) give consideration to any submissions received from members of the public within that period. (2) The period specified in the invitation must run for at least 30 days. (3) This section does not apply to a draft plan given to the Minister in accordance with a direction under subsection 40D(3). (4) This section does not apply to a draft plan given to the Minister in accordance with a notice under section 40M.40F Minister to have regard to certain matters (1) In deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for a general digital data service area, the Minister must have regard to whether: (a) the plan provides for the general digital data service obligation (in so far as it relates to that area) to be fulfilled: (i) as efficiently and economically as practicable; and (ii) at performance standards that reasonably meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian community; and (iii) progressively throughout that area within such period as the Minister considers reasonable; and (b) the draft plan complies with any requirements in force under section 40G. (2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which regard may be had. (3) In deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for a special digital data service area, the Minister must have regard to whether: (a) the plan provides for the special digital data service obligation (in so far as it relates to that area) to be fulfilled: (i) as efficiently and economically as practicable; and (ii) at performance standards that reasonably meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian community; and (iii) progressively throughout that area within such period as the Minister considers reasonable; and (b) the draft plan complies with any requirements in force under section 40G. (4) Subsection (3) does not, by implication, limit the matters to which regard may be had.40G Minister may formulate requirements for draft plans (1) The Minister may, by writing, formulate requirements to be complied with by draft digital data service plans. (2) The following are examples of requirements: (a) timetables for the supply of services; (b) performance standards relating to the fulfilment of the digital data service obligation; (c) the form of a draft digital data service plan. (3) An instrument under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 40H Notification of decision (1) After deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan for an area, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the decision to: (a) the digital data service provider concerned; and (b) the ACA. (2) A copy of a notice under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette . (3) If the Minister refuses to approve a draft digital data service plan for an area, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the reasons for the refusal to the digital data service provider concerned. 40J Variation of approved digital data service plan (1) This section applies if: (a) an approved digital data service plan for an area (the current plan ) is in force; and (b) the digital data service provider concerned gives the Minister a draft variation of the plan. (2) The Minister must: (a) approve the variation; or (b) refuse to approve the variation. (3) The Minister must not approve the variation unless the Minister is satisfied that, if it were assumed that the digital data service provider were to give the Minister a draft digital data service plan in the same terms as the current plan (as proposed to be varied), the Minister would approve that draft plan. (4) After deciding whether to approve the variation, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the decision to: (a) the digital data service provider concerned; and (b) the ACA. (5) A copy of a notice under subsection (4) must be published in the Gazette . (6) If the Minister refuses to approve the variation, the Minister must give a written notice setting out the reasons for the refusal to the digital data service provider concerned. (7) If the Minister approves the variation, the current plan is varied accordingly.40K Public comment—variation of plan (1) Before giving the Minister a draft variation of a plan under section 40J, a digital data service provider must: (a) publish a preliminary version of the draft variation and invite members of the public to make submissions to the provider about the preliminary version within a specified period; and (b) give consideration to any submissions received from members of the public within that period. (2) The period specified in the invitation must run for at least 30 days. (3) This section does not apply to a draft variation given to the Minister in accordance with a notice under section 40M. 40L Minister may direct the ACA to give reports and/or advice (1) Before deciding whether to approve a draft digital data service plan or a draft variation of an approved digital data service plan, the Minister may direct the ACA to give the Minister such reports and/or advice as the Minister requires to assist in making the decision. (2) The ACA must comply with the direction. (3) This section does not, by implication, limit the Minister's powers under section 486 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (which deals with public inquiries).40M Minister may direct variation or replacement of plan (1) This section applies if an approved digital data service plan (the current plan ) for an area is in force. (2) The Minister may give the digital data service provider concerned a written notice requiring the provider: (a) within the period and in the terms set out in the notice, to give the Minister a draft variation of the current plan; or (b) within the period and in the terms set out in the notice, to give the Minister a fresh draft digital data service plan for the area that is expressed to replace the current plan. (3) The provider must comply with the notice.40N Compliance with approved digital data service plan (1) If an approved digital data service plan for a general digital data service area is in force, the general digital data service provider concerned must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the plan is complied with. (2) If an approved digital data service plan for a special digital data service area is in force, the special digital data service provider concerned must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the plan is complied with.40P Register of digital data service plans (1) The ACA is to maintain a Register in which the ACA includes all approved digital data service plans currently in force. (2) The Register may be maintained by electronic means. (3) A person may, on payment of the charge (if any) fixed by a determination under section 53 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 : (a) inspect the Register; and (b) make a copy of, or take extracts from, the Register. (4) For the purposes of this section, if the Register is maintained by electronic means, a person is taken to have made a copy of, or taken an extract from, the Register if the ACA gives the person a printout of, or of the relevant parts of, the Register. (5) If a person requests that a copy be provided in an electronic form, the ACA may provide the relevant information: (a) on a data processing device; or (b) by way of electronic transmission.[Division 4A of Part 2—digital data; digital data service plans](20) Page 31 (after line 10), after Division 5, insert:Division 5A—Regulation of digital data service charges46A Digital data service charges (1) For the purposes of this Division, if a person is a general digital data service provider for a particular area, a digital data service charge is a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of general digital data services to persons in the area. (2) For the purposes of this Division, if a person is a special digital data service provider for a particular area, a digital data service charge is a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of special digital data services to persons in the area.46B Declaration subjecting digital data service charges to price control arrangements (1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette , declare that specified digital data service charges are subject to price control arrangements under this Division. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .46C Price control determinations (1) This section applies if a declaration is in force under section 46B in relation to a particular digital data service charge. (2) The Minister may make a written determination setting out: (a) price-cap arrangements and other price control arrangements that are to apply in relation to the charge; or (b) principles or rules in accordance with which the digital data service provider may impose or alter the charge; or both. (3) A determination has effect accordingly. (4) A determination under this section takes effect at the time specified in the determination. (5) A determination under this section may make different provision with respect to different customers. This section does not, by implication, limit subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (6) A determination under this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .46D Content of price control determinations (1) A determination under section 46C relating to a digital data service charge may: (a) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without the Minister's consent; or (b) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without the ACCC's consent; or (c) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without prior notice being given to the Minister; or (d) prohibit the charge from being imposed or altered without prior notice being given to the ACCC; or (e) empower the Minister to direct the ACCC to give the Minister such reports and advice as the Minister requires for the purposes of assisting the Minister in deciding whether to give a consent in accordance with the determination. (2) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit section 46C.46E Price control determinations subject to determinations under Part 9 (1) This section applies if a determination under subsection 154(1) or 157(1) is in force in relation to a charge imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by Telstra. (2) A determination under this Division is of no effect in so far as it relates to that charge. 46F Compliance with price control determinations A digital data service provider must comply with a determination in force under this Division.[Division 5A of Part 2—digital data; regulation of digital data service charges](21) Clause 47, page 32 (line 9), after "obligation", insert ", and certain costs that are associated with fulfilling the digital data service obligation,".[Clause 47—digital data; simplified outline](22) Clause 47, page 32 (line 13), after "obligation,", insert "or a digital data service provider incurs certain costs (called digital data costs ) in the course of fulfilling the digital data service obligation,".[Clause 47—digital data; simplified outline](23) Clause 47, page 32 (line 14), after "losses", insert "or costs".[Clause 47—digital data; simplified outline](24) Clause 54, page 36 (line 28), after "provider", insert ", or a digital data service provider,".[Clause 54—digital data; claims for levy credit](25) Clause 54, page 37 (line 5), omit "The claim", substitute "If the person is a universal service provider in relation to the financial year, the claim".[Clause 54—digital data; claims for levy credit](26) Clause 54, page 37 (after line 11), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) If the person is a digital data service provider in relation to the financial year, the claim must set out: (a) the person's digital data cost for the financial year (worked out under section 61A); and (b) details of how that digital data cost has been worked out; and (c) such other information (if any) as the approved form of claim requires.[Clause 54—digital data; claims for levy credit](27) Page 45 (after line 3), after clause 61, insert:61A Digital data cost of a digital data service provider for a financial year (1) A person's digital data cost for a financial year depends on which of the following paragraphs is applicable for that financial year: (a) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (ii) the person has elected that a specified amount will be the person's digital data cost for the financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is equal to that amount; (b) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (ii) the person has elected that a specified method of ascertaining an amount will apply for the purposes of determining the person's digital data cost for the financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is worked out using that method; (c) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year; and (ii) the person is not a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (iii) a determination is in force under subsection (4) in relation to that financial year; the person's digital data cost for the financial year is worked out in accordance with the determination; (d) if: (i) the person is a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year; and (ii) the person is not a digital data service provider in relation to that financial year because of the operation of a selection system determined under section 26C or 26D; and (iii) no determination is in force under subsection (4) in relation to that financial year; then: (iv) if the amount worked out using the formula in subsection (3) is greater than zero dollars—the person's digital data cost for the financial year is equal to that amount; or (v) if the amount worked out using the formula in subsection (3) is not greater than zero dollars—the person's digital data cost for the financial year is zero dollars. (2) For the purposes of this section, if a person is a digital data service provider for an area in relation to a financial year, the person's customer equipment costs for the financial year is an amount equal to the sum of: (a) the total costs incurred by the person in acquiring customer equipment that: (i) is covered by a declaration that was in force under section 46B during the financial year in relation to charges imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the person for the supply of customer equipment of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 14A(1)(a) or (5)(a); and (ii) was supplied by the person during the financial year to persons in the area; and (b) the total rebates that became payable during the financial year by the person, in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection 19A(8), in respect of customer equipment acquired or hired by persons in the area. (3) The formula referred to in paragraph (1)(d) is as follows: Customer equipment costs—Customer charges + Supplementary amount where: customer charges means the total amount payable by persons in the area referred to in subsection (2) by way of charges for the supply by the person during the financial year of customer equipment covered by paragraph (2)(a). customer equipment costs means the person's customer equipment costs for the financial year. supplementary amount means the amount (if any) specified in, or ascertained in accordance with, regulations made for the purposes of this definition. (4) The Minister may make a written determination specifying a method of ascertaining an amount for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c). The determination has no effect unless each person who was a participating carrier immediately before the determination was made gave a written consent to the making of the determination. (5) The amount worked out under a determination under subsection (4) may be zero dollars. (6) A copy of a determination under subsection (4) must be published in the Gazette .[Clause 61A—digital data; digital data cost of a service provider for a financial year](28) Page 45, after clause 61A, insert:61B Reduction of excessive costs (1) The Minister may, by written instrument, formulate principles or rules that are to be applied in determining the extent (if any) to which costs are to be treated as excessive for the purposes of subsection 61A(2). (2) For the purposes of the application of subsection 61A(2) in relation to a particular financial year, if: (a) a person has incurred costs of a kind mentioned in paragraph 61A(2)(a); and (b) the costs are treated, under the principles or rules in force under subsection (1), as excessive to any extent; the amount of the costs is to be reduced by the amount of the excess. (3) An instrument under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .[Clause 61B—digital data; reduction of excessive costs](29) Clause 63, page 46 (after line 7), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) whether or not a claim by a digital data service provider for a levy credit for a financial year correctly states the digital data service provider's digital data cost for that financial year; or[Clause 63—digital data; ACA may inquire into the correctness of a claim or return](30) Clause 64, page 47 (after line 2), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The assessment must set out, for each digital data service provider in relation to that financial year: (a) the digital data service provider's digital data cost for the financial year; and (b) the digital data service provider's levy credit balance (if any) under section 69 for the financial year; and (c) if the assessment sets out a levy credit balance of the digital data service provider for the financial year—the amount payable to the digital data service provider under section 85 for the financial year.[Clause 64—digital data; ACA to assess liabilities and entitlement](31) Clause 64, page 47 (after line 5), after "providers", insert "and digital data service providers".[Clause 64—digital data; ACA to assess liabilities and entitlement](32) Clause 67, page 48 (lines 5 to 12), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A participating carrier's levy debit for a financial year is the amount worked out using the formula:Contribution factor x (Total net universal service cost + Total digital data cost)where: contribution factor has the meaning given by subsection (2). total digital data cost means the total digital data costs for the financial year of all the digital data service providers in relation to the financial year. total net universal service cost means the total net universal service costs for the financial year of all the universal service providers in relation to the financial year.[Clause 67—digital data; levy debit of a participating carrier for a financial year](33) Clause 68, page 49 (lines 9 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:68 Levy debit balance of a participating carrier for a financial year If a person's levy debit under subsection 67(1) for a financial year exceeds the sum of: (a) the person's net universal service cost for that financial year; and (b) the person's digital data cost for that financial year; then: (c) the person has a levy debit balance for that financial year; and (d) the amount of that balance is the amount of the excess. [Clause 68—digital data; levy debit balance of a participating carrier for a financial year](34) Clause 71, page 50 (line 12), omit "or (3)", substitute", (3) or (3A)".[Clause 71—digital data; public may request information](35) Clause 71, page 50 (line 22), after "provider", insert ", or a digital data service provider,".[Clause 71—digital data; public may request information](36) Clause 72, page 51 (after line 5), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) a person who is a digital data service provider in relation to a financial year;[Clause 72—digital data; request for information that is unavailable under section 71](1) Clause 69, page 49 (lines 16 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:69 Levy credit balance for a financial year If the sum of: (a) a person's net universal service cost for a financial year; and (b) the person's digital data cost for that financial year; exceeds the person's levy debit under subsection 67(1) for that financial year: (c) the person has a levy credit balance for that financial year; and (d) the amount of that balance is the amount of the excess.[Clause 69—digital data; levy credit balance for a financial year](2) Heading to clause 85, page 56 (line 24), omit "to a universal service provider ".The purpose of these amendments is to give legislative effect to our election commitments in relation to the USO and certain digital data requirements. The proposed amendments include a digital data service obligation in the universal service regime.The government has long recognised that equitable access to advanced telecommunications services for regional Australia is a vitally important issue. Of particular concern has been the need to provide data services which operate at acceptable speeds. We announced during the election campaign that we would include in the USO access to ISDN on demand for 96 per cent of the population. For the balance not able to access ISDN on demand, there would be provision of an on- demand, Internet based, asymmetric satellite service that delivered a satellite down-link service comparable to 64 kilobits, together with reimbursement of up to 50 per cent of the price of purchasing the necessary satellite receiving equipment. These amendments give effect to that policy.In essence, the amendments insert new provisions to include a digital data service obligation. The amendments provide for a general digital data service to be provided by a general digital data service provider. This is the ISDN equivalent service required to be available to 96 per cent of the population. As well, there will be a special digital data service which will cover the remaining four per cent. Funding arrangements provide for the subsidy to be paid for the equipment necessary to receive the special digital data service, funded by the industry as part of the existing universal service levy arrangements.Provisions requiring the development of digital data service plans have also been applied to the digital data service obligation, as have price control arrangements, providing the government with the flexibility to intervene. In addition, these amendments include amendments consequential to the main digital data service obligation. They have therefore been prepared in the form of the request referred to by the Chairman.12:30:005562Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I wish to make a few general comments concerning the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill and then make some general comments in respect of the specific amendments moved by the government. This bill is about the consumer service guarantee, USO and service standards. These principles, which the ALP holds dearly, are very close to the heart of rural and regional Australia. They are threefold: universality, affordability and accessibility of telecommunications services.Until recently telephone services have been the phone in the home, public phones and the odd fax machine. An array of potential services is now coming onto the marketplace. In the main they are driven by technical technology—an example is data feed. People are interested in having access to those services. It doesn't matter whether they live in our major cities, the suburbs of our major cities or in the most remote parts of our continent; all people are becoming aware of those services and they regard it as their right to have access to them. Those principles of universality, affordability and accessibility of minimum service standards are very important to rural and regional Australia. Indeed, they are so important that they have been incorporated into the national platform of our party.Turning to the key amendments moved by the government, such as the extension of the USO to include provision of digital data at 64 kilobits or a level equivalent upon demand, the government is proposing to implement its 1998 election commitment. The government chooses to ignore, and hopes that no-one remembers, its 1996 election commitment. That 1996 election commitment was for provision of data at 64 kilobits to all people in Australia—those in the major cities, in the suburbs of major cities and in all parts of regional and rural Australia, without exception.At the time the ALP said this was an aspiration, that you could do it for 95 per cent or 96 per cent of the population but for the rest, the other four per cent, it would be inordinately expensive. At that time we were pilloried up hill and down dale because we were `unreasonable'—we had no trust in technology, we would refuse to give services to rural and regional Australia. But as it has turned out, we were correct.Upon coming to government, the coalition commissioned a report. That report, from Mr Shore at the ACA, said that this extension of the USO to the remaining four per cent of the population would cost $800 million. Telstra said it would cost $1.8 billion. Those figures were the figures we had identified as the real cost. The coalition had pooh-poohed them, but when it came to government it requested proper advice and, lo and behold, the advice it received was identical to the advice that the Labor Party in government had given to the then opposition. We had said that to meet the election commitment the USO cost would be between $800 million and $1.8 billion. We remind the government of the truth. We informed the then opposition of the actual cost. The opposition, now the government, chose to ignore that advice and to go to people with a misleading promise, which it then went back on.Armed with that, it then went to the 1998 election. It agreed with an extension of the USO because it conformed with previous principles. With regard to the four per cent equivalent data service, the government says it will pay half the cost of installation and equipment. The expected cost per consumer is somewhere between $1,200 and $1,800, as I understand it. However, the 64-kilobit ISDN equivalent—that is, via satellite—is one way only. It doesn't work both ways. I would have thought that businesses and consumers in rural and remote areas who are interested in fast and effective services would have liked the services both ways—sending and receiving, up and down. This equivalent data service to the outstanding four per cent of the population in rural and regional Australia half-delivers on the promise: it delivers on the up but not on the down.So the government is halfway home. It had a full commitment in 1996. It was advised that that commitment could not be practically carried out because of the exorbitant cost. It chose to ignore that advice from the government of the day. On coming to office, it sought advice from authorities within the ACA. The advice from Mr Shore of the ACA was the same as the previous government, the ALP government, had given to the then opposition. It now changes its position, saying it is honouring its altered election commitment by offering equivalent satellite services to that four per cent of Australia. But the honouring of that commitment is only a halfway house: it is only on the up and not on the down. So I ask the minister two questions. Is it true that the up-load rate will remain slow? The second question, consequential upon the first, is: will the minister advise us how many exchanges in Australia have been digitised to date?12:37:005563Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the second question is that if it is not 100 per cent, it is pretty close to it. That process should have been completed more than 12 months ago. As far as the speed of the uplink is concerned, it is essentially designed to cater for dial-up services; in other words, people who want access to a vast range of information on the material which they would like to download or stream, but who essentially wish to access a lot of information, will be able to get it at a very high speed.Sixty-four kilobits, which is the ISDN satellite equivalent to the fixed-line service, delivers absolutely on our election commitment. It gives people the opportunity to access that quantity of information at very high speeds. It does not give you the opportunity to transfer equivalent levels of material at high speeds. That is essentially a commercial operation. People can use VSAT and other ways to achieve that. We are talking here about what is a reasonable minimum standard of service for ordinary Australians.We have not mandated mobile phones and all the latest whizzbang technology; we mandate a standard telephone service and define it so that everyone understands that you will get a normal telephone service. Similarly, we are amending the legislation in terms of digital data so that you will be able to get what we regard as a reasonable entitlement for ordinary Australians, not for big businesses and the like. It is the same principle extended from voice to data.12:38:005563Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I indicate that the Democrats support these amendments. They almost fulfil an election commitment. Their effect is to mandate the availability of digital data capability as part of the USO. The Democrats have been pushing for this for some time, so we are pleased to see that it is now part of the legislation.However, the major problem that we have with these amendments is their inadequacy with regard to the pricing of digital data services. The amendments do give the minister the power to make price control arrangements and to cap pricing of these services, but as far as we are aware—and I hope the minister will clarify this as soon as possible—the minister has no intention of regulating the price of ISDN. So the only financial assistance that will be provided under the USO relates to the provision of customer equipment for four per cent of Australians who need to purchase satellite equipment. There is no cross-subsidy under the USO for the service charges associated with obtaining ISDN.There hardly seems to be any point in bothering to mandate the availability of these services when the price at which they are set is simply too high for the average consumer to afford. I understand that the cost of ISDN is in the region of $700 a year, plus timed call charges. We think that the price of ISDN services needs to be set at an affordable level, and what the government is not doing is making this technology affordable. Again, it is almost pointless to mandate the availability of a product or a service under the USO if the USO provider makes it available at an unaffordable price.I would like to recount a comment made by Mr Alasdair Grant, from the carrier AAPT, in his testimony to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the bills. He said:Telstra has been dragged kicking and screaming to make 64 kilobit services available to I think now 98.4 per cent of the population. Having done so, it has now somewhat petulantly decided to price it at a level that no-one can really afford.So while ISDN access is available to 98.4 per cent of the population, the ACA's report says that something like 65 residential consumers in the entire country are purchasing it. The issue becomes not just the availability of these services, because where those services are available but only available under monopoly conditions, they will be there but no-one will take them up because they are far too expensive.The price of obtaining digital data capability must be affordable. The Democrats' first amendment on sheet 1258 proposes mandating the availability of ISDN or comparable services, but the difference between the government's amendment and ours is that it proposes that the service be provided at an affordable price. So we will be supporting these government amendments but we will be pursuing our amendment, which will involve the regulation of the price of ISDN services to make them affordable.I have a couple of questions to which I would be obliged if the minister could turn his mind. Having regard to yesterday's decision that there will be a cap applied to the USO, what are the cost implications of this amendment? In other words, is there any part of this amendment which mandates the availability which will be accounted for in the USO? Will the cap be increased as a result of that, and what is the process for doing so?12:43:005564Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—To the extent that these matters are built into the USO, arrangements such as the 50 per cent subsidy will be a matter for recoupment from the industry. Beyond that, we do not need to regulate the price of these services because the ACCC has already made ISDN a declared service, which means that in due course, if wholesalers such as AAPT are not able to negotiate what they regard as a fair and reasonable price for interconnect arrangements, they will be able to have those matters arbitrated upon by the ACCC. So it is a very significant advance. It is very much consistent with the part 11B and C regime that is now in place and which, I believe, is working effectively, although there are always refinements and improvements that one can consider. We will look at some of those a little later. I think the fact that this has already been made a declared service is a very big step ahead.I am not aware of the suggestion by Senator Allison that somehow Telstra has jacked up the rates in recent times. I am certainly aware of concerns that ISDN pricing has been non-competitive, and I have shared those concerns, because there have not been other players in the marketplace. It has been a suspicion of mine for quite a while that it was being priced as a premium product rather than a commodity.Progress reported.Bills5564r8015564Consideration resumed from 26 May.The bill.12:46:005565Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—by leave—I move:Clause 7, page 3 (after line 9), after the definition of ASIC , insert:authorised trustee corporation means each of the bodies it corporate listed in schedule 9 to the Corporations Regulations in force from time to time.Clause 9, page 6, (after line 2), at the end of the Clause, add:(4) TrusteeCo must ensure that there is in force at all time between the conversion time and the finalisation time a deed under which: (a) TrusteeCo authorises an authorised trustee corporation to exercise all rights, privileges and benefits vested in TrusteeCo by or under this Act or the Wool International Act; and (b) TrusteeCo undertakes not to exercise those rights, privileges and benefits; and (c) the authorised trustee corporation undertakes to perform all duties, liabilities and obligations (other than the obligation imposed by this subsection) vested in TrusteeCo by or under this Act or the Wool International Act.(5) A deed under subsection (4) may relieve the authorised trustee corporation from liability except in the case of fraud, wilful default or neglect.(6) All acts done by the authorised trustee corporation under the deed are taken to have been exercised or performed by TrusteeCo for the purposes of this Act (other than this section) and the Wool International Act.These amendments emanated out of hearings of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which I chair and of which other senators in the chamber are members. We believe the changes to the legislation are necessary because they clearly create a situation where the management of TrusteeCo—through an independent trustee—is independent and at arm's length. Therefore, the committee made recommendations that these amendments should go through and they have been adopted by the government.There was quite a bit of discussion about the number of equity holders who were not identified through a correct process under Corporations Regulations. It was argued by some that the figure was as high as 40 per cent, but we believe now that it was much closer to 26 per cent and is coming down. At the hearings, we were given assurances that there would be a major campaign to identify those people, and that letters have gone out to growers or equity holders who were not identified in the right form. Also, in the Western Australian The Countryman this week there was an advertisement about it, so the task is being carried out.I believe this legislation and these amendments are incredibly important to the wool industry. Some comments were made in this chamber last night with regard to the freeze, and claims were made that prices have gone backwards or that the freeze had not helped the wool industry. I want to put a couple of facts on the table. I know I have very limited time, and it is more important to get the legislation through than it is to listen to me, but it is worth noting that since the second freeze the growers' stockpile has been reduced from 992,000 bales to 642,000 bales, which is a significant improvement on what would have been sold under the previous arrangements. The money that has come from that has gone directly into growers' pockets. As of an hour ago, the price rise since the second freeze has been from 465c to 531c, which is also very significant.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That is very good news.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Thanks, Senator Woodley. Another point I make about this legislation is that it would not have been possible to privatise the wool stockpile and give control back to the growers without the freeze. You may have been able to do it with what was proposed by the previous government under Wool International Holdings or Global Wools but in fact you would have been compulsorily acquiring growers' money—figures ranged from $26 million to $40 million. But under these arrangements whereby the government wished to truly privatise the wool industry and put the responsibility back into the hands of the equity holders, it had to occur. We now are in that position.I believe the wool industry will continue to recover much of the ground it lost in recent years through a series of not only agro-driven decisions but also decisions driven by the previous government. One can lay blame wherever one likes, but some realities cannot be denied. I will leave my comments at that. I will address some of the other issues that were raised in an adjournment speech at a later date, because I think the record on some of the things that were said last night needs putting straight.12:50:005566Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Firstly, the opposition supports the government's amendments. We note that these amendments have been drafted after a tortuous exercise over the last couple of days, commencing with the recommendation of the legislation committee that the bill needed to be amended to ensure not only that independence of the trustee operation existed but that it was seen to exist.We had originally felt that this should be achieved by an arrangement whereby an authorised trustee corporation should be appointed as the overall trustee. However, the arrangements that have now been proposed would ensure that TrusteeCo—that is, the trustee company within WoolStock Australia—would authorise another trustee corporation to exercise all the rights and privileges and benefits vested in TrusteeCo under this act.That is particularly important, as Senator Crane has outlined and as I drew attention to in my speech and other senators have commented on, with regard to that block of shares that will not or may not ultimately be able to be converted and issued to individual equity holders because of technical problems or inability to identify the persons or companies involved. It was always a concern that we might not end up with a situation where a substantial block of shares—even if it is 20 per cent or 25 per cent, it is still substantial—were effectively in the hands of the directors of WoolStock Australia, who of course under the legislation are given the power to in turn appoint the directors of TrusteeCo.One thing that has become clear throughout this exercise from the views right across the industry sector is that they did not want to see out of this privatisation process Wool Interna tional mark 2; in other words, that we just went through all of the processes of privatisation, of establishing new boards, new companies, new trustee companies, but ended up with either the same old faces or the same old agro-politics driving the decisions. I was going to say `agri', but I take Senator Crane's comment. We are glad that all members of the committee—government, Democrat and opposition—agreed to this and that the government has finally been able to produce an amendment which is acceptable and will enshrine that principle.If the trustee arrangements ultimately are not as independent as was intended—we hope that does not happen—then senators from this side will have something to say about it. We have been assured by the government that this process will work. On that basis, we are happy to support the amendments.I do not have time to take issue with all of Senator Crane's comments. We will leave them for another day. I reiterate: many decisions were made in the past where unfortunately the blame was laid at the feet of government or at the feet of the previous ministers, but the real culprits were those in the industry who thought that they could sustain the high prices forever. It was industry that had the power and pushed the reserve price up to 870c back in 1990—a totally unsustainable price, as was later proven to be the case.With those few comments and with the expectation that there will be plenty more debate about the future of the wool industry—we all hope that the industry returns to prosperity for the sake of the nation and for those involved in the industry—we look forward to the ongoing debate over coming months.12:56:005566Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Democrats will also be supporting this amendment. I thank the parliamentary secretary for answering a couple of my questions in her second reading speech. I had to go out of the chamber, but I have read her speech and was reassured at that point. I have a couple of quick questions in relation to the amendments. I am aware, as is the chamber, that the amendments, as written, had to be written that way, particularly because of the tax implications. I note in your second reading speech, Parliamentary Secretary, that you say some of these issues are still to be fully explored with the Australian Taxation Office. I am happy for that to occur. That is a process that will continue. I presume you would not have any more information today. If you do have, we would be happy to have it.The other question I raised was about the sunset clause. I am seeking confirmation—it is more or less there—of my reading of the Wool International Privatisation Bill 1999 , which is that nothing in the bill prevents a future decision by the directors. Is that the government's understanding of the bill as well?GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Yes.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—That is good. I was looking for that. It was not absolutely clear in the second reading speech. You may not be able to answer this question—I would be happy for you to say `pass'. There was a lot of discussion in the committee about the possibility of substantial offers to buy the total amount of the wool stockpile and some assurance given by Mr McGauchie that he would ensure that at the first annual general meeting that information would be available to members. I do not know whether the government has any information on whether that process is being progressed. If you do have information, it would be useful for the chamber to have it.Lastly—and I meant to say this in my speech during the second reading debate—I want to acknowledge all of the players in this process, particularly the small group of wool growers in Victoria who informed me over the last five or six years in this debate and eventually became the Australian Wool Growers Association. I found their persistence and sometimes quite aggressive continuation of the point they were wanting to make to be very helpful. They certainly kept me up to the mark.It is very interesting in terms of agri- and agro-politics that a group of players quite outside the statutory body and the main peak bodies was able to stay with the game and influence the decisions that have been made. Perhaps there ought to be room in agro- and agri-politics for groups like that. I suspect, unless we do something different, the same process as has happened with the wool industry is going to happen with the dairy industry. Growers who are dissatisfied with the representation that they get from their peak bodies are going to continue to work outside the system if they cannot work inside it.13:00:005567Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Briefly, Senator Woodley, as I indicated to you last night—and I will repeat those words—tax law, as it relates to trusts, is complex and there are ongoing discussions with the Australian Taxation Office to obtain the best possible tax outcome for unit holders. However, I can further assure you today that, based on current tax advice, the trustee company will not need to pay income tax on distributions and this is the same benefit that applies to equity holders of WoolStock Australia.I think you indicated that I had answered your second question, in regard to the future role of WoolStock. In regard to your third question and the fact that some offers have been made for the stockpile: any future decision regarding that, after 1 July, will obviously be made by the board. But I would say that, under the constitution, those matters have to go back to shareholders to be considered in that way, so that there would be an extremely full and frank discussion by shareholders and the board if any of those matters came to pass.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.5567Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills5568r742Billsr741Bills5568r7455568Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That these bills be now read a second time.13:03:005568Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—There has been recent talk about the delay of these bills. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was reported yesterday as blaming the opposition for its spoiling role in relation to the Senate. I think it is worth while to detail the tortuous journey of these bills to the Senate today just to see the roles that Labor and the government have played. The Wallis report, the recommendations of which form the basis of this package of bills, was released in 1997. The government had planned at one stage to get these bills into effect by December last year and yet it only introduced them into the other chamber in March of this year. Labor referred them to a Senate inquiry with an expedited timetable and the report, with a minority report by Labor, was tabled on time on 13 May.Until Friday afternoon, the government had not even bothered to list on the government's draft Senate program the bills for debate this week. When they finally did appear on the revised list, they were listed as non-controversial—to be confirmed—even though the government had not indicated that it would address all of Labor's concerns raised in the minority report. The government did not supply Labor with amendments responding to the report until Monday of this week. Labor responded to these amendments with its own amendments the next day. Finally, on Wednesday night, the government having agreed to most of Labor's amendments and compromised on the others, agreement was reached to treat the bills as non-controversial. Labor can hardly be accused of spoiling the chances of these bills being debated and passed today. Indeed, we have bent over backwards to ensure that the bills are passed, but importantly passed in a vastly improved form to that in which the government originally presented them. Labor is broadly supportive of the bills before the Senate today. However, we have serious reservations about some aspects of the unamended bills, which we believe unduly weaken the prudential and corporate regulatory controls over the financial sector that have contributed to the sector's strength in recent times. To be fair to the government, after initially presenting a most unsatisfactory set of bills to the other place, it has now been accommodating in relation to many of Labor's concerns, and I understand that the government will be moving six pages of detailed amendments today in response to issues raised by Labor. I place on the record my delight that the government has seen fit to follow Labor's lead in relation to financial reform. Labor has, after all, been a leader of financial sector reform. As the Prime Minister said just last week, the strength of today is the product of yesterday's reform.While the Wallis reforms have produced some significant modifications in the regulation of the sector, today's strengths stem from Labor's reform record during our last period in government. We lifted restrictions on outward investment by Australian companies, floated the Australian dollar and abolished exchange controls in 1993. We introduced an extensive program of liberalising foreign investment restrictions in 1989 and we worked to open the Australian financial system to foreign banks. These reforms contributed to a fundamental shift in the way the Australian financial sector operates and in the way financial services are provided in Australia. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has recognised Labor's excellent record of reform. The government has continued the reform of the sector largely with Labor support following the Wallis financial system inquiry. The package of bills under consideration today implement some of the Wallis recommendations.One of the package's main intentions is to bring building societies, credit unions and friendly societies under the prudential regulation of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, known as APRA, and Labor welcomes this. The effective and consistent prudential regulation of a financial system is most important for economic stability, as many of our Asian neighbours have learnt the hard way in recent times. I hope that the changes, as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation indicated in the other place, allow those non-bank institutions to compete on a more even footing with the banks. We shall have to wait and see to measure the effectiveness of these changes on that front.The bills also provide a single regulatory framework for life insurance companies and friendly societies, and alter the regulation for life insurance and the flexibility of its application. One concern raised by the Australian Friendly Societies Association to the inquiry was the lack of provision in the legislation for the transfer of friendly societies to companies limited by shares, despite several members of the association having indicated their desire to adopt that corporate structure. It appears to Labor strange that, while the government has indicated an intention to level the playing field in the financial sector, it has erected a hurdle that only friendly societies have to jump while credit unions and building societies can move directly into that corporate structure.The Labor members' minority report to the inquiry recommended that consideration be given to removing the distinction from the bills. The report noted the following:Treasury argues that there are a number of complexities involved in permitting a limited by shares structure as an option on transfer for friendly societies as opposed to other transferring entities, but goes on to say that despite this, any friendly society wishing to convert to limited by shares form will have that option after transfer under existing procedures in the Corporations Law.In other words, on the transfer day, the limited by shares option is not available but after the transfer it will be.Since the tabling of the report, Treasury has advised that the conversion on the transfer day would be to a statutory share, whereas under the Corporations Law a more conventional share would be adopted. On the basis of this advice, and noting Treasury's earlier advice to the inquiry that it will be open to friendly societies to move across to a company limited by shares after the transfer to APRA has occurred, Labor will not be proposing any amendments on this issue. However, it is hoped that friendly societies do not have to bear an unnecessarily complex administrative burden as a result of this special treatment under the bills. They should be seeking answers from the government if that occurs.Labor supports a strong prudential regulatory regime for the financial sector. Part of the strength of that regime is its flexibility. APRA needs some room to move on various issues. However, Labor is concerned that elements of this package go too far on the flexibility front, and it is not just Labor who values the current regulatory system, despite what these bills appear to suggest. On 17 May 1999, while announcing Joe Hockey's new role as ambassador for the financial sector, the Prime Minister also had some kind words for the current system. He said Australia has:. . . a strong, stable, well-supervised and prudently regulated banking system. We have a clear coherent body of law. We have sound traditions and principles of corporate governance. And one of the fascinating things about economic debate in this country and around the world in recent times is how some things that were a few short years ago seen almost as impediments to Australia aspiring to what we are about today are now seen by some as our greatest strengths. I can even recall some businessmen a few years ago saying that we were too stodgy, that our banking system perhaps was a little too conservative . . . Now, of course, those very apparent signs of stodginess are seen as some of the greatest strengths that this country has. Perhaps what some would call our very conservatism in the approach of many of our financial institutions, that is now seen as having been one of the virtues of this country over the last few years and one of the reasons why we have been able to stare down the Asian economic downturn.Frankly, I could not have put it much better myself. What was seen as stodgy is now understood to have been an important contributor to Australia's stability in the midst of the Asian storm. But what the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill seeks to do is unravel this protection. The bill introduces the transfer mechanism to the federal sphere for the first time. The mechanism will allow authorised deposit taking institutions and life insurance companies to transfer assets between themselves. The mechanism already exists at the state and territory level for building societies and credit unions, but this bill extends it to banks and life insurers.Labor is concerned at this extension of the mechanism. We accept the need for flexibility in the financial sector. No-one is happy to see the collapse of any financial institution, and any mechanism that assists in the prevention of that collapse is a welcome addition to the arsenal of the prudential regulator. However, the transfer mechanism, as it currently stands under the transfers bill, provides a machete where a scalpel would have done the trick. Section 43 of the bill operates to make anything done under the transfers bill exempted from the operation of all other acts—save those prescribed by legislation and breaches of confidence or contract or civil wrongs.My colleague the shadow Treasurer pointed out in the other place that would mean, for example, that, unless the Trade Practices Act was prescribed by legislation, a transfer could occur under the bill even if it breached the merger provision of the Trade Practices Act and that there is no guarantee that the Trade Practices Act will be prescribed. I understand that the government will be proposing an amendment which incorporates the merger provision of the Trade Practices Act into the transfers bill. I am delighted that they have responded to Labor's concern on that front, but we return to the machete versus the scalpel. What of the other acts that are excluded from the transfers bill? What of the exclusion of breaches of confidence or contract and civil wrongs?The government has indicated that it will prescribe by regulation the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998, the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991 and the Foreign Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1995. While there is nothing in the transfers bill to compel this to be done, the minister has indicated in the other place that that will be done. Labor will be watching closely for those regulations, but of course there are many other acts with potential operation. The inquiry process brought to light the Banking Act and the Workplace Relations Act, and the Corporations Law was highlighted by the Labor senators' minority report. There are likely to be many more.The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has advised that most of the Banking Act will be prescribed by regulation. Labor is pleased with its inclusion. The minister has also indicated that the government will agree to a Labor amendment that brings the Workplace Relations Act and section 63 of the Banking Act into operation under the transfer of business bill. Of real importance, the current corporate safeguards under the Corporations Law must operate where any transfer occurs. As the Labor members of the inquiry into these bills found:While there is a need to provide flexibility for the transfer mechanism—particularly the compulsory mechanism—for prudential reasons, Labor members consider that this flexibility should not be at the expense of the legislative safeguards built into other legislation for shareholders, deposit-holders, policy-holders, creditors and the wider community.The office of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation has advised that the transfer rules to be prepared under the transfers bill will preserve many of the corporate safeguards under the Corporations Law, with any changes necessary to maintain sufficient flexibility for the transfer mechanism.I have seen a draft version of these rules, supplied yesterday. While I need the opportunity to study them in more detail, my initial reaction is one of concern. Even allowing for some flexibility, how the four pages I have seen can replicate the legislative and common law rights currently available in respect of mergers and acquisitions is beyond me. As the Prime Minister said, our corporate and prudential regulatory system may once have been viewed as stodgy, but that perception is long gone. That view has been replaced by one that acknowledges that our system is now one of the best in the world. I put the government on notice here today that Labor will be watching its implementation and administration of the transfers mechanism closely. Australia must not squander the strength of our prudential system which has been built up over decades of reform.Another strength of our financial system is the four pillars policy. The policy assists in promoting competition in the sector, safe guarding service levels and types, accessibility to services, and employment in the sector. One of the few legislative safeguards for the policy is the requirement, under section 63 of the Banking Act, for the Treasurer's consent for any bank mergers. The transfers bill and related sections in the amendments and transitional provisions bill as originally drafted could have operated to remove the requirement for this consent, both for bank mergers and for transfers between authorised deposit taking institutions, which are, in effect, de facto mergers.I understand that the government will be moving amendments and agreeing to an amendment moved by Labor to ensure that the Treasurer is still required to consent to mergers and to ensure that the Treasurer will also be required to consent to transfers between authorised deposit taking institutions. I am delighted that the government has seen fit to acknowledge and respond to Labor's concerns.A further concern Labor has with the transfers bill as originally presented is that it does not require APRA to consult with either the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, even though there will be both competition and corporate regulatory issues under consideration in any transfer application. I understand that the government will propose amendments requiring consultation with these bodies, and I am delighted that it will do so. After all, the government itself set up the regulatory regime for financial institutions, split between APRA, ASIC and the ACCC, and it would be rather ironic if it collapsed its own system so soon after establishing it.As I said before, the transfer mechanism appears to adopt a machete approach where a scalpel would have done. It is not as if the government has not had a fair bit of time to think about it, yet we find out through the committee process that, for example, the ACCC, the chief competition regulator for the Australian economy, was not consulted in the original drafting of these bills—bills that, without the amendments to be debated today, provided a new mechanism to potentially significantly reduce competition in the financial sector.APRA itself appears to have a few problems in relation to its employees. The movement of staff into new statutory authorities is an event often fraught with difficulties. The experience of APRA's staff appears to have been rather more difficult than most. The minority report on these bills sets out Labor's concerns in detail so I will restrict my comments to calling on the government to ensure that APRA acts within the spirit and intention of the Workplace Relations Act and allows those staff who wish to negotiate a certified agreement to do so.I will be proposing amendments in the committee stage that address this issue in more detail as well as the issue of how staff affected by the transfer mechanism will be treated. I am pleased that the government has indicated that it has no difficulty with those amendments. I will also be moving a number of amendments on behalf of Labor that deal with the public's access to information and some issues in relation to reporting and payment requirements. I had also intended to move amendments on behalf of Labor to ensure that APRA publishes in the Gazette and newspapers the names of new ADIs transferring to the federal sphere as a result of these bills and the conditions imposed upon them at time of transfer. However, in the interests of expediting these bills, I have agreed to the undertaking by the government that it will publish a list of all transferring institutions—building societies, credit unions and friendly societies—in the national press prior to or on the transfer day to ensure that consumers are aware of the change, and that it will ensure that the conditions are publicly available to interested parties in due course.Labor is supportive of the Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 . In conclusion, Labor is broadly supportive of the package of bills before the Senate today but we have real concerns with elements of the bills, particularly in relation to the proposed transfer mechanism. This government has demonstrated a distinct lack of commitment to consumers in relation to the financial sector, especially in relation to bank fees and charges. It is important that the Wallis reforms do not roll on apace without parallel action being taken to safeguard the interests of consumers in any reforms.13:18:005572Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The purpose of the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and related bills is to enable the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority to extend its power to effect transfers of businesses between authorised deposit taking institutions to credit unions, building societies and friendly societies. The Australian Democrats agree with that broad intention. This will occur on 1 July and has the strong support of those institutions, which anticipate that it will improve their perception in the retail market and that it will not cause them any problems in the transfer from existing state regimes across to a national regime.The bill exempted the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 from the operation of section 63 of the Banking Act 1959, which provides that the consent of the Treasurer must be obtained prior to any merger or restructure of an authorised deposit taking institution. This gave rise to the concern that the bill could be used as a backdoor to circumvent the four pillars policy, particularly given that there is no stipulation in the legislation that the power to effect a transfer of business can only be used where an authorised deposit taking institution is in financial difficulty. The government has, however, amended the draft legislation to ensure that the bill is no longer exempt from the requirement that the Treasurer give consent to a transfer of business by APRA.There were concerns raised that the remuneration and working conditions of former Commonwealth employees would not be preserved upon their move to the newly established APRA. This situation has occurred before, notably in the case of former CES staff moving to Employment National, and there is concern that a trend of downgrading employment conditions of former Commonwealth employees is becoming apparent. As I understand it, late last night the government acquiesced to an amendment to ensure that the remuneration and working conditions of these employees would be preserved. I would like to compliment Senator Conroy, in particular, and the Labor Party on pursuing this issue and, through their amendments, we believe, ensuring that this matter is improved. I would also note for the record that APRA is an independent authority and therefore I would not expect them to adopt the ideology of the ruling government of the time and to pursue a just and equitable outcome for their new employees in this matter.Having complimented Senator Conroy, I would like to compliment the government as well because you have been particularly accommodating, as I understand it, in your efforts to ensure that the bills go through and in accepting the Labor amendments. The Democrats record that we will support both the government and Labor amendments and we therefore note in passing our broad support for these bills.13:21:005572Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on this package of bills. I will not delay the chamber any longer in this lunchtime debate except to put on record our appreciation of the contributions that have been made and also to note that a period of about six weeks of negotiations and discussions took place in coming to these amendments. I commend this package of bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.557213:23:005572Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 . These memoranda were circulated in the chamber on 26 May 1999.FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 1) 1999The bill.Amendments (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:(1)Clause 3, page 2 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph (b).[section 63 of the Banking Act—transfers of business](2)Schedule 2, page 12 (after line 17), after item 7, insert:7A Subsection 11(1)Omit "or specified provisions", substitute "provisions (other than section 63) or specified provisions (other than section 63)".[section 11—restricting scope of orders](3)Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (line 19), omit "; and", substitute ".".[section 11—restricting scope of orders](4)Schedule 2, item 51, page 31 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (c).[section 11—restricting scope of orders](5)Schedule 2, item 52, page 32 (line 5), omit "; and", substitute ".".[section 11—restricting scope of orders](6)Schedule 2, item 52, page 32 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph (c).[section 11—restricting scope of orders](7) Schedule 2, item 53, page 32 (lines 15 to 18), omit the item.[section 63 of the Banking Act—transfers of business]13:25:005573Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 7 on sheet 1399:(1) Schedule 2, item 13, page 14 (line 18), at the end of subsection (4A), add "Whenever APRA gives a copy of a standard, or of a variation, to an ADI or authorised NOHC, it must also provide a copy to the Treasurer.".[section 11AF—application of prudential standards](2) Schedule 2, item 15, page 14 (line 27), at the end of subsection (5A), add "Whenever APRA gives a notice of revocation to an ADI or authorised NOHC, it must also provide a copy to the Treasurer.". [section 11AF—application of prudential standards](3) Schedule 2, after item 51, page 31 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the Treasurer did not give prior consent in writing to the ADI entering into the arrangement or agreement or effecting the reconstruction; and[section 63—amalgamation offence](4) Schedule 2, item 65, page 37 (line 10), after "subsection (4)", insert "and any regulations under subsection (3)".[section 69—unclaimed moneys](5) Schedule 2, item 68, page 38 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) it does not pay, at the time of the delivery of the statement, the amount specified in the statement, as required by subsection (5); and[section 69—unclaimed moneys](6) Schedule 8, item 3, page 185 (line 17), omit "relating to remuneration", substitute "of employment".[terms and conditions of transferred staff](7) Schedule 8, item 3, page 186 (lines 1 to 6), omit subitem (4).[terms and conditions of transferred staff]Items 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that APRA is accountable to the government in relation to any conditions or variations in conditions it imposes on one or more specified authorised deposit taking institutions or authorised non-operating holding companies.Labor is concerned that, while conditions or variations that APRA imposes on other groupings of ADIs or NOHCs must be published in the Gazette and in newspapers, the treatment is different for one or more specified entities. APRA has advised that, where a regulator applies special prudential measures, there is a danger with publication that market participants might use such measures as a broad signal as to the status of an institution. Such problems arise because of the official imprimatur which publication of a specific prudential measure by APRA might be seen to represent—for example, by retail investors. This could disadvantage an institution and have an anticompetitive effect. Labor acknowledges APRA's argument, but is still concerned at the lack of transparency of the mechanism. Labor has reached a compromise position with the government which will require APRA to give to the Treasurer a copy of any individual prudential regulatory standards. We will monitor how this prudential tool is used.Item 3 is intended to preserve the current requirement under section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 for the Treasurer to give prior consent in writing to ADI mergers, acquisitions and transfers. Item 4 is intended to clarify the requirements for the format of any statement to APRA. Item 5 is intended to clarify the requirements for the timing of any payment to APRA. Item 6 is intended to preserve the terms and conditions of employment of employees moving to APRA, rather than limiting the preservation to terms and conditions relating to remuneration.After the government had agreed that it would support this amendment, the office of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation relayed some concerns to Labor as to the extent of the effect of this amendment. Labor considers that these concerns can be addressed at the workplace level through negotiation between the employer and the employees. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, I hope that APRA will use the mechanisms available under the Workplace Relations Act to allow those employees wishing to do so to negotiate a certified agreement.Item 7 removes the variation of terms, conditions and power that the government has sought to confer under the bill. Instead, any variation will occur under the usual channels of the Workplace Relations Act.13:27:005574Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting the opposition's amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.FINANCIAL SECTOR (TRANSFERS OF BUSINESS) BILL 1999The bill.Amendments (by Senator Patterson)—by leave—proposed:(1) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) APRA must not approve the transfer of business if it considers that the transfer should not be approved, having regard to provisions of another Act: (a) that are prescribed for the purposes of subsection 43(4); or (b) referred to in subsection 43(5) or (6).[effect of other laws](2) Clause 12, page 10 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).[consultation with ACCC and ASIC](3) Clause 12, page 10 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in deciding whether to approve the transfer of business, APRA must consult with: (a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (b) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (3) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the transfer of business if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer; or (b) a class of transfers that includes the transfer. (4) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in relation to the transfer of business if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer; or (b) a class of transfers that includes the transfer.[consultation with ACCC and ASIC](4) Clause 25, page 20 (lines 10 to 15), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) APRA is satisfied that: (i) the transferring body has contravened a provision of its regulatory legislation; or (ii) if the transferring body is an ADI—the body has informed APRA under subsection 13(3) of the Banking Act 1959 that it considers that it is likely to become unable to meet its obligations, or that it is about to suspend payment; or (iii) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed a person, under subsection 13A(1) of the Banking Act 1959 , to investigate the affairs of the body, or to take control of the body's business; or (iv) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed an administrator, under subsection 13A(1) of the Banking Act 1959 , to take control of the body's business; or (v) if the transferring body is an ADI—APRA has appointed a person to investigate and report on prudential matters in relation to the body under subsection 61(1) of the Banking Act 1959 ; or (vi) if the transferring body is a life insurance company—APRA has given the body a written notice under subsection 139(1) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 stating that APRA proposes to investigate life insurance business of the body; or (vii) if the transferring body is a life insurance company—a judicial manager of the body has recommended, in accordance with subsection 175(2) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 , that a compulsory transfer determination be made in relation to the body; and (aa) APRA has considered the interests of depositors or policy owners of the transferring body (when viewed as a group) and considers that, having regard to their interests, it would be appropriate for the transfer to be made; and[criteria for compulsory transfer](5) Clause 26, page 21 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraphs (b) and (c).[consultation with ACCC and ASIC](6) Clause 26, page 21 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in deciding whether to make the compulsory transfer determination, APRA must consult with: (a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and (b) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (3) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the making of the compulsory transfer determination if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer concerned; or (b) a class of transfers that includes that transfer. (4) APRA does not have to consult with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in relation to the making of the compulsory transfer determination if the Commission has notified APRA, in writing, that it does not wish to be consulted about: (a) the transfer; or (b) a class of transfers that includes the transfer.[consultation with ACCC and ASIC](7) Clause 43, page 33 (line 2), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7) and (8)".[effect of other laws](8) Clause 43, page 33 (line 3), after "any", insert "law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or in any".(9) Clause 43, page 33 (after line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: For the effect of a certificate of transfer, see sections 22 and 35.[effect of other laws](10) Clause 43, page 33 (line 5), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7) and (8)".[effect of other laws](11) Clause 43, page 33 (line 20), omit "and (6)", substitute ", (6), (7) and (8)".[effect of other laws](12) Clause 43, page 33 (line 24), to page 34 (line 4), omit subclauses (4), (5) and (6), substitute: (4) The regulations may provide that some or all of the provisions of another Act (not being provisions referred to in subsection (5) or (6)) apply in relation to a transfer of business that takes effect or may take effect under this Act, with the modifications (if any) specified in the regulations. The regulations have effect accordingly. Nothing in this section limits the operation of those provisions (as they have effect subject to any modifications specified in the regulations). (5) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 . (6) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 . (7) For the purposes of section 50 and related provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 a transfer of business (whether voluntary or compulsory) that takes effect under this Act is taken to be: (a) to the extent that the transfer is of shares in the capital of a body corporate—an acquisition of the shares by the receiving body; and (b) to the extent that the transfer is of other assets—an acquisition of those assets by the receiving body. (8) The provisions of this Act and the provisions: (a) prescribed for the purposes of subsection (4); or (b) referred to in subsection (5) or (6); operate independently of each other. In particular, a decision under one of those provisions has effect only for the purpose of that provision, unless express provision is made to the contrary.[effect of other laws]13:28:005576Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—by leave—I move items 1 to 5 on sheet 1409:(1) Amendment 1, paragraph 11(2)(b), omit "or (6)", substitute ", (6), (7) or (8)".[effect of other laws](2) Amendment 7, clause 43, omit "and (8)", substitute ", (8), (9) and (10)".[effect of other laws](3) Amendment 10, clause 43, omit "and (8)", substitute ", (8), (9) and (10)".[effect of other laws](4) Amendment 11, clause 43, omit "and (8)", substitute ", (8), (9) and (10)".[effect of other laws](5) Amendment 12, clause 43, omit subclauses (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), substitute: (4) The regulations may provide that some or all of the provisions of another Act (not being provisions referred to in subsection (5), (6), (7) or (8) apply in relation to a transfer of business that takes effect or may take effect under this Act, with the modifications (if any) specified in the regulations. The regulations have effect accordingly. Nothing in this section limits the operation of those provisions (as they have effect subject to any modifications specified in the regulations). (5) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 . (6) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 . (7) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of any of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . (8) Nothing in this Act limits the operation of section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 . (9) For the purposes of section 50 and related provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 a transfer of business (whether voluntary or compulsory) that takes effect under this Act is taken to be: (a) to the extent that the transfer is of shares in the capital of a body corporate—an acquisition of the shares by the receiving body; and (b) to the extent that the transfer is of other assets—an acquisition of those assets by the receiving body. (10) The provisions of this Act and the provisions: (a) prescribed for the purposes of subsection (4); or (b) referred to in subsection (5), (6), (7) or (8); operate independently of each other. In particular, a decision under one of those provisions has effect only for the purpose of that provision, unless express provision is made to the contrary.[effect of other laws]These amendments seek to ensure that the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 does not operate to the exclusion of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and section 63 of the Banking Act 1959.Amendments (Senator Conroy's) agreed to.Amendments (Senator Patterson's), as amended, agreed to.13:29:005576Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:Clause 43, page 33 (line 20), omit "section", substitute "Act". [effect of other laws]Labor's amendment is intended to ensure that any requirements for consent or advice imposed under the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill or by section 63 of the Banking Act 1959 are not deemed to have been obtained by operation of section 43(3).In conclusion, this amendment, together with those moved by the government—moved, I might add, only after Labor highlighted the possible dangers of the four pillars policy collapsing under these bills—serve to strengthen the bills before the Senate today. It is simply outrageous for the government to claim—as the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation was reported to do in yesterday's Financial Review—that Labor had been playing a spoiling role in relation to legislation before the Senate. The amendments debated here today serve to strengthen the bills the government has proposed. Labor still has concerns with some aspects of the bills, as I discussed in the second reading debate, and it will be monitoring their operation closely. I commend the amendment to the Senate.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (RSAs PROVIDED BY REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS) BILL 1999The bill.Bill agreed to.Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill 1999 reported with amendments; Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provided by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999 reported without requests; report adopted.5577Bills (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills5577r7385577Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:31:005577Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Trade matters. In the last financial year, Australia's exports amounted to $114 billion, over one-fifth of the value of Australia's gross domestic product. Looking at our top exports and imports, sales of coal, gold, wheat, wool and iron ore allow us to buy cars, computers, computer parts, petroleum and telecommunications equipment—not a very diverse bunch of exports, and that is part of the reason why the Export Market Development Grants Scheme does need to be expanded. But trade matters not only for economic reasons. In the words of the British policy analyst, Geoff Mulgan:The world can be more easily unified through the peaceful activity of buying and selling than through international treaties or fantasies of world government . . . Trade breeds trust, and trust breeds trade.Tantalising stuff. At present, however, Australia's trade is in a parlous situation. This government holds two records in the trade area: (1) Australia's highest ever trade deficit of over $10 billion for calendar year 1998 and (2) Australia's highest ever current account deficit, in original terms, of $28.6 billion for calendar year 1998.The Asian economic crisis has caused particular difficulties for exporters. Extra work is required just to remain a presence in their Asian markets and yet, if they do not keep their foot in the door, they will have additional work to do as the Asian economies inevitably recover. At the same time, exporters need to look for new markets in North America and Europe and to make up for lost sales in Asia. Both of these tasks are made much simpler by a government that understands the needs of exporters and is willing to give them the support they deserve, not the parsimony and the red tape epitomised by the current export market development grants legislation.But then there is the GST. What impact will it have on exports? If you believe Tim Fischer, exports will go up under a GST. But the experts do not necessarily think so. Take, for example, tourism. Mr Murphy, the government's modeller of choice, says tourism will decline as an employer and as an industry as a consequence of the GST. Secondly, Treasury's analysis also indicates that the GST will lift the exchange rate of the Australian dollar by some 3.5 per cent. The government's preferred modeller, Mr Murphy, says that it could be as much as 4.1 per cent. Either way, it will make our goods and services much more expensive in overseas markets. With a record trade deficit, a record current account deficit, the Asian crisis and a GST looming on the horizon, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is one of the few bright lights for exporters. Yet what did this government do to the EMDG Scheme when it came to power? Typically, it slashed its funding. As Senators Forshaw, Hogg and I said in our report when the Export Market Development Grants Scheme Act 1997 was considered by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee:It is clear from the evidence before this Committee that the significant narrowing of the scheme will disadvantage a great number of Australian exporters.The Howard government, unfortunately, took no notice of our warning. They brought in extra red tape and capped the scheme at $150 million per annum. $150 million is pretty stingy for a scheme like this when you consider that this is the same Howard government that earlier this year gave $100 million to Comalco to develop a gas pipeline in Queensland.To see the effect of the 1997 Howard government's slash and burn philosophy you just need to compare Austrade's 1996-97 and 1997-98 annual reports. There are three points: (1) total export market development grants down from $213 million to $147 million, a fall of 31 per cent; (2) total number of grant recipients down from 3,553 to 2,933, a fall of 17 per cent; and (3) total jobs attribu table to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme down from 77,000 to 59,533, a fall of 22 per cent.The government should remove the cap it has placed on the scheme. During the last financial year, the cap was not met. Grants and administration costs amounted to some $3 million less than the $150 million cap. But next year the cap is likely to bite. In fact, my sources tell me that, in the coming financial year, exporters will get back only 80 per cent of that which they claim. Who will be hurt by this? Our cutting edge exporters, of course.I now turn to the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Stott Despoja requiring Austrade to undertake a review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme with a view to placing it on a permanent footing. Labor strongly supports this amendment. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has operated continuously from 1974—nearly one-quarter of the time since Federation—and yet it is still considered a temporary scheme. It has no firm legislative footing. It requires extension in dribs and drabs. At least for most of its history, it has been extended in four- and five-year blocks. But this time the government proposes to extend it by only two years. You can see the writing on the wall.Had the Democrats' amendment not been foreshadowed, I would have brought forward one of my own to extend the scheme for another four years, but I prefer the review mechanism to look at placing the scheme on a more permanent footing.The industry—that is, the exporters of Australia—are strongly in favour of a longer horizon for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. They require long, strong signals from the government that this is a stable scheme and that they can plan their corporate vision and their corporate strategy to lift exports knowing that the scheme will be there and can be relied on.In a recent letter, the Export Consultants Association wrote to me of the value to them of being able to plan with more certainty and make long-term commitments for export marketing activities. In that letter, they said:In the current economic situation in Asia, exporters should maintain a presence in markets which have provided good opportunities in recent years but are currently suffering a decline. Many Asian buyers have been critical of Australian exporters in the past for disappearing when times were not so good and, if this is repeated, long term damage would be caused to Australia's prospects in those markets when they recover.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Cook, I understand you are speaking to an amendment that is not currently before the chair. I understand the amendment will be moved in the committee stage of the bill. There is no amendment before the chair, and you are speaking to the amendment now. It should be debated in the committee stage.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am speaking broadly to the bill and the foreshadowed amendment. What I say now will save me having to repeat it later.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand, but there is no amendment before the chair.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. But I am fully expectant—and I note for the record the affirmative head-nodding of Senator Stott Despoja—that there will be one. If I could complete my remarks, that would save us some time. Let me resume the quote from the Export Consultants Association's letter. After emphasising the importance of Australian exporters maintaining a presence in the Asian market, they go on to say:It is therefore critical that the government encourage Australia's exporters to maintain their presence in these markets and the EMDG program can assist in achieving this goal.We must also remember what this government hope will be the situation in mid-2001 when their extension to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is due to run out. Under their plans, Australia will have had a GST for a year. Let me quote from another letter—from the Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia—representing an industry which earned the nation over $16 billion last year. The letter states:The prime purpose [of the Bill] is to extend the life of the Scheme by a further two years. We do not consider this provides adequate certainty to our industry. If for some reason the government is able to get its ANTS legislation through the Senate the inbound tourism industry will be dealt a serious blow. Having achieved this then we can expect the Treasurer to move to terminate the EMDG scheme . . . This would be a double whammy for the tourism industry.I emphasise that it is this industry that offers mostly young people—and particularly job seekers—their first taste of employment, that it is this industry that is the strongest growth industry in creating jobs in Australia; and that organisation, the Inbound Tourism Organisation, speaks for a large part of it.Labor strongly supports the proposed review. We will be putting to it our view that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme should operate on a permanent basis. It should still be subject to periodic review, but the onus should be on those who seek to do away with the scheme, not on those who wish to see it continued. I understand the government is also supporting the Democrats' amendment. I sincerely thank Minister Fischer's staff and Senator Brownhill—who is in the chamber—for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they have approached discussions on this legislation. We did not reach agreement on every point, but there was broad consensus that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is a good scheme. I hope that, when it comes to the review next year, there will be bipartisan consensus to put export market development grants on a permanent footing. I move:At the end of the motion, add:"but that the Senate is of the opinion that: (a) in view of Australia's record current account deficit (over $28 billion in 1998) and record trade deficit (over $10 billion in 1998), there is an urgent need to increase exports; (b) the Government's 1997 imposition of an annual funding limit at the same time as the introduction of more red tape for small exporters has had the effects of: (i) reducing funding for exporters under the EMDG scheme from $213 million to $147 million—a fall of 31 per cent; and (ii) cutting the total number of EMDG grant recipients from 3,553 to 2,933—a fall of 17 per cent; and (iii) slashing the number of jobs created by the EMDG scheme from 77,000 to 59,533—a fall of 22 per cent. (c) the Asian economic crisis has increased ongoing costs for small exporters in maintaining a crucial foothold in Asia, while imposing new costs as they search for other markets to replace lost sales; (d) the Government should remove the $150 million annual funding limit applying to the Export Market Development Grants scheme".13:43:005580Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I begin where Senator Cook left off but suggest that it be not a bipartisan review or discussion but a cross-party discussion.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I amend my speech accordingly!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Senator Cook. The Democrats also extend thanks to Senator Brownhill for the very cordial and cross-party manner in which he conducted the discussions and for the briefings from the relevant department. It was a nice, cooperative process. The Democrats will be supporting the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 today for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme which was established in 1974. The scheme is administered by Austrade and aims to provide a financial incentive in the form of a taxable grant which represents a partial reimbursement of promotional expenditure incurred in the pursuit of exports.Grants are based primarily on expenditure incurred by Australians or their companies seeking to create or expand exports of their products in overseas markets. An entitlement to a grant arises where the applicant has incurred at least $20,000, has export revenue of less than $25 million and is not a grantee in respect of eight or more previous grants. I understand that the most recent review of this scheme was conducted by Austrade in 1994. That review published a number of key findings that include: the EMDG Scheme was achieving its objective of encouraging firms to seek out and develop export markets; revenues from taxes on grant receipts and profits on additional exports were estimated to return 42 per cent of the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth; the minimum level of qualifying expenditure, the grant rate, number of grants and performance test were largely appropriate; the scheme should be extended for a further five years; and the scheme should be extended to all claimants in the tourism sector. Austrade has informed us that a comprehensive review of the scheme has not been undertaken since 1994.The Australian Democrats believe this is a worthy scheme. There is no doubt that this type of scheme provides real encouragement to business to pursue export markets. A measure which has been used to compare the relative effectiveness from year to year of the scheme in encouraging exports is the ratio of the value of exports to grants. This gives a measure of how many export dollars were earned for each dollar spent in grants through the scheme. In the financial years from 1992-93 to 1996-97, the ratios were 21 to one, 27 to one, 26 to one, 28 to one and 35 to one respectively. That means that, for each dollar spent by way of grants, $35 was received into Australia from exports. I consider that quite a reasonable return on this country's investment and, clearly, the efficiency of the scheme is increasing. This is not an expensive scheme for the benefits that it generates for this country. In the 1996-97 financial year, the government paid $138 million in grants to 2,933 recipients.When the scheme was revised in early 1997, it was capped so that expenditure on grants and administration would not exceed $150 million. At the time, my colleague Senator Andrew Murray expressed the Australian Democrats' view, which was that the scheme should not be capped. The basis on which we took that view was that the growth of the scheme was not open-ended, that it was not the subject of widespread abuse and that there was no danger of the scheme causing budgetary problems. The Democrats are still of the view that the scheme should not be capped. We appreciate that the exporters of Australia are lucky to have this scheme at all. We suspect that had it been left to the Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, the whole thing might have been abolished back in 1997. I suspect we have the Deputy Prime Minister and Senator Brownhill to thank for the fact that we at least have a modified version of the pre-1997 scheme.One of the positive aspects of the revision of the scheme in 1997 was the recognition of the role that tourism plays as an export earner for this country. Prior to that revision, tourism operators were entitled to be reimbursed for only 25 per cent of their expenditure. The 1997 act allows tourism operators to claim the full 50 per cent on expenditure, like any other exporter. In his second reading speech, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill at the time, said:The government has also recognised the significant contribution made to our exports by the tourism industry. We have increased the grant rate for all tourism providers to the full rate of 50% . . . It is encouraging that the government has recognised the valuable contribution that tourism industry exports make to the Australian economy.I will now discuss broadly the amendments contained in the bill. The most significant amendment is the extension of the scheme for a further two years until 30 June 2001. While the Democrats commend the government for the continuation of the scheme, we consider that, in some ways, this is a rather piecemeal approach to the extension of the scheme, and that is inadequate. It provides exporters and prospective exporters with no certainty that the scheme will continue for their benefit. An Australian manufacturer or service provider would not realistically think that they could commence promotion of their work or their product or their service in overseas markets and establish a place within the market within two years. The decision to attempt to develop an export market is, without doubt, a substantial one for any exporter or prospective exporter, and it is a decision which involves a lot of planning. That is where problems immediately arise as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the continuation of this scheme.If a producer of goods decided tomorrow that they wanted to consider exporting their products to Asia or Europe, the assistance that could be obtained from the EMDG Scheme would be a major consideration. But how do they go about forecasting their future position while trying to break into that market if they do not know whether the assistance under that scheme is to continue beyond 30 June 2001? I acknowledge that the office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade provided my office with a briefing from Austrade in relation to the bill and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that cooperation. During that briefing, we were concerned that we did not receive a satisfactory answer to the question about extending the scheme for at least a few years beyond the proposed extension, with a view to providing prospective exporters with some certainty and some ability to plan on the basis of receiving grants for a number of years. As Senator Peter Cook mentioned, I will be moving an amendment when we reach the committee stage of this bill that provides for a review of that scheme.In conclusion, as I said, the Democrats are happy with the scheme. We are very happy to support the government's extension of the scheme, but we would like to see a comprehensive review of that scheme with a view to giving exporters some certainty and encouraging them to make medium-term and long-term plans to promote their products and services in overseas markets.13:51:005581Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Export Market Development Grants Scheme, or EMDG Scheme, commenced in 1974. The scheme was established by the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974. That act was repealed in 1997 by the Export Market Development Grants (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Act 1997 and replaced with the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997.The EMDG Scheme is administered by Austrade and provides financial assistance primarily to small and medium enterprises as an incentive to branch out into new export markets. The act currently allows the scheme to operate for the 1998-99 grant year, but not beyond that. This bill extends the grant years until the end of the 2000-01 financial year.The EMDG Scheme repays part of the promotional expenses which enterprises incur in pursuing exports where the products exported are of substantially Australian origin. The scheme provides up to 50 per cent reimbursement of eligible expenses where a person has spent over $20,000 per annum on eligible export promotion, although the first $15,000 of expenditure is deducted. First time applicants can combine two years expenses. A maximum of eight grants of up to $200,000 per grant is available, although additional grants may be claimed for expenses incurred in new markets.The issue of transparency has been of concern to the Greens both in relation to this bill, the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , and in a more general sense to do with export grants in the past. The Greens have regularly stated that this lack of accountability to parliament is of great concern. The government is not spending its own money. The very significant funding for programs such as the EMDG Scheme comes from public funds—that is, the taxpayers. Therefore, the parliament, which comprises the elected representatives of the people who pay the taxes and levies that comprise those public funds, does have the right to scrutinise the expenditure of public moneys.It is worth while pointing out at this time that the varying levels of accountability that the government is keen to pursue depend on how public money is spent. I find it extraordinary that we have so much emphasis on assessment and accountability, focusing on the provision of social security and community service and much less so on these industry assistance programs. The dichotomy in relation to industry assistance is between what should be protected under the guise of commercial-in-confidence versus what kind of transparency should be associated with grants of public money of this kind.The Greens are wary of the quite frequent use of the commercial-in-confidence claim by businesses dealing with the government and by the government in dealing with business. This has increased with the increase of outsourcing and contracting out by government departments, as well as with the moves towards commercialisation of government business enterprises. The immense difficulty that the parliament has had in extracting information from Telstra, which is only partially privatised, is an excellent example in point.I am aware that the ALP were keen to extend the information that was available on the public record in relation to approved export grants. They were interested in seeing the name of the company, the industry, the amount of the grant and the country that the recipient was exporting to. Both the Auditor-General and the Greens have previously made comments in this chamber about the inadequacy of the information and performance measures presented in relation to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme.I would like to refer to a comment I made in 1995. Honourable senators may remember that my concern in previous years—I guess as soon as I was elected—was initially that many of the export market development grants were going to the defence industry. I said:I stated in the context of the EMDG scheme that I hoped the government would consider improving the assessment of performance and the nature of the criteria used in that assessment.I went on to say:Performance measures are also difficult to assess and do not seem to be clear. While `return for dollar expended' gives some rough idea, it is a very rough idea indeed. There is no information about variation in this average. Do some dollars bring much greater returns? Do some bring little returns? Is there a breakdown of where and why good returns develop? Is information about where, how and why some expenditures give good returns, while others fail to do so, effectively passed on to applicants?Other performance measures—such as numbers of grant applications, size, and distribution by industry—are good but not always easily available. Nor is there much information about things like why the number of grants declined from 1990-91, or what the increase in grants to companies providing financial or property services means. Is this about grants to insurance companies trying to expand? Is the increase in construction consultancy services due to grants for John Holland or Transfield to promote themselves in winning dam contracts? Is the community service increase due to grants for universities to promote educational services? Before that, in 1994, I said in my speech on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill:The lack of performance measures combined with Austrade's minimal annual reporting of its largest budget item leaves Parliament inadequately informed of the scheme's effectiveness given the high profile of the scheme and the frequency of legislative changes required.The lack of performance measures is considered to be a function of the initial establishment of the scheme. If the scheme had been devised in such a way that its rationale was clearly stated so that its impact could be measured, considerable savings would have resulted from the ease with which the focus and impact of the scheme could have been monitored and regulated.We were talking then about issues like equity in the promotion of undesirable goods and habits from the Greens (WA) point of view. In principle, the Greens are supportive of calls for greater transparency when it comes to dealing with public money. Indeed, we have asked for the same range of information in relation to other exports, particularly defence exports, in the past. I have mentioned that this particular scheme was certainly used, perhaps more in the past, for the promotion of defence exports, although it did not necessarily say so in its goals. We have found it quite difficult to gather this information. I have previously met brick walls under the guise of commercial-in-confidence when trying to find out information about exports in the past. As I said, this is particularly in relation to defence exports.In a question on notice on 1 October 1997, I asked the Minister for Defence what were the top 200 defence export approvals by value in the 1996-97 financial year. I asked which companies, which countries and what was the nature of the equipment. The answer was that the names of exporters are not released due to the commercial-in-confidence nature of the information. As this particularly related to defence exports, I thought it was rather bizarre. When we know that there is public money going to assist those companies in many cases, it does seem extraordinary that, when it is something as important as defence exports, we are unable to ask which companies are involved. I hope that the Senate will have the chance at some stage—when I am not here—to have a closer look at the basis for future grants when the review mentioned by the minister goes through.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice558355835583Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, and it concerns government backsliding on tax avoidance. I refer to the Assistant Treasurer's failure yesterday to restate the government's commitment to tax family trusts as companies as outlined in the government's own tax package, in the light of National Party pressure to protect the tax avoidance opportunities these trusts present. Will the minister cease clinging to the Ralph committee as an excuse to not address this issue, and guarantee that, irrespective of the Ralph committee's final report, the government remains committed to the action it outlined in the ANTS package in August last year, that is—and I emphasise these words—to tax trusts in the same way as companies?5583Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of course the government remains committed to the ANTS package. In fact, the problem is that the Labor Party is attempting to stop us putting the commitments we made in the ANTS package through this chamber. Of course we remain committed and the issues in relation to trusts and the implementation of the commitments outlined in the ANTS package have been referred to the Ralph committee. We are waiting for the report of the Ralph committee, which will be due on 30 June, and the government will make a response to that report.Senator, you are talking about backsliding on tax avoidance—this comes from the senator who is well known in this chamber for ceaselessly defending one of the larger rorts in the tax system, R&D syndicates. The Labor Party opposed the government action—certainly you opposed the government action—when we attempted to take action, and successfully in the end took action, against R&D syndicates.Senator, you left us with a tax system where there were major opportunities for tax avoidance. In the closing days of the Labor government they discovered that, despite 13 years in government, there were some problems in the high wealth area. That was after 13 years, and in the final run-up to the 1996 election you decided that action should be taken in this area. You took years upon years to decide to take any action in relation to trust losses. There is a host of examples where the Labor Party was prepared to run a tax system which in many cases meant the paying of tax was quite optional.This government has taken very strong action in the area of tax avoidance and this government will continue to take strong action because we believe that people should pay their fair share of taxes. We are not going to go down the Labor Party road, which you did for 13 years, and completely ignore this problem in any meaningful sense. Again, I remind the Senate that it was Senator Cook who led the fight against us closing a major loophole in the tax system—R&D syndicates. Senator, you will wear that cross forever.5584Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The Labor Party has never supported tax avoidance and you know it, Minister. Don't mislead this chamber. Secondly, we are opposed to a GST, not to closing down tax avoiders. Minister, have you, by flipping this to the Ralph committee, conveniently forgotten that your own Prime Minister, John Howard, stated on 13 August last year:We have outlined in the ANTS document some proposals whereby trusts in effect from 1 July 2000 will be taxed in the same way as companies.Can you answer this question, Minister: has the government's position on the taxation of trusts changed? If so, when did it change and why?5584Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I said to you, we remain committed to the commitments we made in the ANTS package. We indicated in the ANTS package that we would consult on the framework for taxing trusts like companies. That is what we said in the ANTS package. You will just have to wait until we get the proposals and the recommendations from the Ralph committee. I want to assure this Senate and the Australian public that this government remains absolutely committed to tackling tax avoidance wherever it may be. We will not make the same mistake that Senator Cook and his colleagues made in government and ignore major areas of tax avoidance in this economy and in the tax system that they were running. We will not be making that mistake.55845584Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Will the minister tell me what have been the positive benefits for workers and their families from the government's workplace relations policies and what further reforms does the government propose to improve the living standards of all Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative industrial relations proposals and what threats would these pose to Australia's continued economic growth?5584Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is a very good story out there. Australian workers are acutely aware of the fact that the economic climate is benign not by accident but by design and that all the economic indicators are very positive in terms of workers and their families. You don't have to take my word for it. Someone said today that we enjoy low inflation, recovering economic growth, a booming stock market and exciting new industries on the rise.FF4CHAPMANSenator Chapman—Who said that?LD4Senator ALSTON—It was a bloke who thought he could probably get away with whispering this on the side and hope that the Australian public did not know what he was on about. It happened to be Mr Beazley at the Australia Unlimited conference. You get a bit pumped up, you think you are on the big stage and this is your moment of glory. They have managed to squeeze in someone from the opposition. This is the Economist , they are going to relay your words around the world so you cannot be seen to be miserable and negative and running the same old union driven line. You slip in a few words of truth and hope to God no-one knows about it. You do not box your release and you put your head in the sand, basically. It is not a bad tactic in some respects. I do not think he has ever got a run in the Economist to date but he probably deserves one for this.What he did not go on and say, of course, is that under the coalition dispute levels in the workplace are at their lowest since 1913. And of course he also did not say that under 13 years of Labor real wages grew in total by 1.3 per cent, but under the coalition real wages have grown by nine per cent. This is an extraordinary indictment of that accord, isn't it? But, no, the accord is going to be wheeled out again in due course, given another name—dress it up a bit, but the same old deal: `We'll go in there, hold hands together and whatever you want we'll give you.' That is, of course, a tragedy for Australia and Australian workers. And I can understand why Senator Carr does not want to see Jennie George come up here to the federal parliament, because there she was a few years—Senator Carr interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, she'd probably trump you for extremism, and that is really saying something. What she said was, `The union movement will throw all its resources into defeating . . . a further round of legislation is not necessary.' So she was then asked on Neil Mitchell , `Well, what is it about the legislation in relation to secret ballots that you are concerned about?' She said, `I haven't seen it.'UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ha, ha!LD4Senator ALSTON—In other words, `I don't know what I'm for but I sure know what I'm against: I'm against anything the coalition government does.' That is basically the line. That, of course, is a tragedy. It just makes one wonder why you lot are so locked in to people like that. Why can't you clean up your act and get someone who is a bit forward looking, someone who understands that industrial relations is not about confrontation? But, no, who is the latest IR spokesman? A Mr Bevis. And Mr Bevis says, `The further this government drives the pendulum from the right, the greater the pressure for Labor to pull it back, and back to a higher mark.' So once again totally unreconstructed, a friend of the ACTU, `Don't worry about the workers. We'll do whatever the union movement wants.'In New South Wales you have the classic example of the high-water mark. The New South Wales Labor Council wants legislation that allows unions to be part of any workplace agreement struck, even where they do not have any members on site. They also want to allow unions to charge non-members a fee when unions negotiate a pay rise in the workplace. What a nice little earner that would be! That is about $230 million. It sure beats working for a living, doesn't it? In fact, what I would suggest to Mr Carr—if he is fair dinkum about this, and if you do not tell him to come to his senses—is: maybe you ought to get an IR high jump event in the Sydney Olympics and really make sure the people who visit here can see a world-class spectacle of a union movement saying, `How high can you jump?' and you can have a whole range of Labor Party—(Time expired)5585Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I think the Senate is benefiting from hearing the minister's outline of the benefits of the government's industrial relations reforms. I wonder if there are any other points that the minister could advise me of with regard to the success of these policies and the failure of any alternatives.5585Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The tragedy is that there are no alternatives. This is what the Labor Party espouses for working Australia. This is not simply some sort of entertainment charade played late at night to the John Curtin hotel; this is fair dinkum, alternative, political policy. I do not know how long it would take at the Olympics but I would have thought you could put that sort of event on for some days, and you would provide enormous entertainment. What you could do for a piece de resistance is get Mr Kelty to do the full monty. In other words, he could get up and recite those immortal lines: `If they want to fight, if they want a war, then we will have the full symphony, all the pieces, all the clashes, and all the music.' Wouldn't that be a fitting way for visitors from all those countries to remember what Australian industrial relations are like? Put it on the table, let them know what you stand for. If you do not think that is such a good idea, can I suggest that you get serious about trying to promote cooperation—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, the time for answering has terminated.LD4Senator ALSTON—between workers and employers and not engage in mindless confrontation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston! And your remarks should be directed to the chair, not across the chamber.55865586Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the government endorse the actions of the ACCC in persecuting a Sydney bookseller, Gleebooks, simply because they printed on customer receipts the words, `Books will cost 10 per cent more with the GST'? That is a true statement, isn't it?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—No.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!3L6Senator CONROY—Isn't it also true that a tax on books is a tax on knowledge? While the government's proposals to tax knowledge are bad enough, doesn't the current action by the ACCC smack of political censorship?Government senators interjecting—3L6Senator CONROY—Doesn't this bookshop have the right to make their customers aware of this government's plans? Will the government now ask the ACCC to withdraw its politically motivated action against Gleebooks?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease shouting.5586Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Conroy would know that the ACCC is a statutory independent authority. I think there was an assumption in your question which was quite wrong and I am surprised you were not aware of that, Senator. I am aware that the ACCC has notified a bookshop that it may be breaching the misleading and deceptive provisions of the Trade Practices Act by including a statement on its receipts that the introduction of a GST will result in the price of books going up by 10 per cent.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Who complained?WW4Senator KEMP—I understand that the commission has indicated to the bookshop—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Put your hand up, Richard—who complained?WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I am trying to answer this question and Senator Conroy keeps on yelling out.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, if there is something you want to know that the minister does not deal with, you can raise it in a supplementary question.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I understand that the commission has indicated to the bookshop that it might seek an injunction or bring an action for damages in relation to this matter. As I said, the commission is an independent statutory authority charged with the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 prohibits conduct which is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Under section 51A, where a corporation makes a representation with respect to any future matter and does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation, the representation shall be taken to be misleading. That is the advice, Senator, that I have. As to the commission's view, my advice is that, based upon its economic modelling, the price of books would, under a GST, increase by substantially less than the amount stated by Gleebooks. Book prices should not increase by 10 per cent.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, tell us how much.WW4Senator KEMP—`How much?' says Senator Faulkner. `How much?' he says. `How much?' Now I will answer that, Senator Faulkner. Thanks for the question. The estimated price increase for the recorded media and publishing industry category, which includes books, is four per cent.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much shouting, which makes it almost impossible for me to hear what Senator Kemp is saying, and I need to do so.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. So, as I said, the indication was of the order of four per cent where modelling was done. Madam President, I think that answers the question which was raised by Senator Conroy.5587Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. When the government and the Democrats blocked the Labor amendment to require the real cost of the GST to be shown on price tickets and customer receipts, did they intend that any retailers who did tell the truth about this insidious and unfair tax would be pursued and punished by the GST police? What happened to the ACCC's responsibility to protect consumers against misleading conduct, instead of its current action which is aimed at protecting the government's political position?5587Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The real issue is: why doesn't the Labor Party tell the truth? Why doesn't the Labor Party allow the government to keep its election promises? Why is the Labor Party attempting to make the government break the promises that it was elected on? That is the issue, Senator Conroy, not these spurious issues that you happen to raise.55875587Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. Economic security and freedom from domestic violence are important issues for Australian women. Will the minister advise the Senate of government policy initiatives aimed at helping women, including proposed changes related to domestic violence and measures to enhance the economic security of women?5587Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Synon for her question. It is very important to focus on some of the issues which are of importance to all Australian women, and this government has been doing that.Today, at a forum that was sponsored by Senator Vanstone on perpetrator programs, I reaffirmed the federal government's commitment against domestic violence through the $50 million Partnerships Against Domestic Violence initiative. One of our priority areas is more work with domestic violence perpetrators. Other priorities include preventing long-term damage to children in violent families and the prevention of violence in indigenous communities. Domestic violence takes a huge toll on Australia's families and this government is determined to tackle it head-on. The provision of court mandated programs as part of a range of programs for the perpetrators of domestic violence can only have positive benefits.In relation to enhancing the economic security of women, the coalition government will be introducing legislation to enable the splitting of superannuation assets after divorce, and this will help to redress the imbalance of superannuation wealth between the sexes. That imbalance is one that NATSEM data has shown exists between the sexes, and this legislation will be the single greatest move to redress that imbalance.But it is only the latest of a number of coalition superannuation initiatives for women that are already in place, including retirement savings accounts that enable women to continue to contribute to their own fund, even when they are out of the work force, and an income tax rebate for spouses who are in the work force to contribute up to $3,000 a year to an at-home spouses superannuation fund. Other changes in superannuation which are available to women and which are beneficial include the extension of the age limit for people contributing to qualifying funds to help people wanting to continue to build up their retirement savings later in life, and the provision of superannuation choice.The Howard government's commitment to working women was also affirmed in the recent budget, with the government announcing a $24.2 million return to work initiative aimed at women who have been out of the work force for two or more years for parent ing or caring. These women will receive access to reskilling to meet the demands of today's work force. I am delighted to note that the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics average weekly earnings figures show the gap between men's and women's wages is closing. I am sure, Madam President, you would be pleased as well. The ABS figures show that women's full-time adult ordinary time earnings are now 84.8 per cent of men's; up from 83.5 per cent at the same time last year, and up from 83.1 per cent when Labor was in government in February 1996. There has been a continuing narrowing of the pay gap between the sexes under this government, and I, for one, am hugely pleased.This latest good news comes on top of ABS work force statistics released on 13 May showing rising women's employment: 210,000 new jobs for women between April 1996 and April this year. In addition, the unemployment rate for women has fallen from 8.4 per cent in April 1996 to 7.3 per cent now. The participation rate for working age women—15 to 64—remains stable at 64.2 per cent, and the number of mothers who are employed continues to rise, increasing by 7,100 in March alone to reach 1,120,000 in April this year. Our government has been focused on the needs of all women, and they are freedom from domestic violence, retirement income and workplace opportunities. (Time expired)55885588Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of comments yesterday by the President of ACOSS, Mr Michael Raper, in relation to the funding of a GST deal with the Democrats? He said:. . . any further erosion of the budget surplus raises the unacceptable risk for low income people of more harsh social expenditure cuts in the future.Minister, does the government share Mr Raper's concern, and will the minister now give the guarantee he refused to give yesterday that the government will not further erode the budget surplus in order to pay for a food-free GST deal with the Democrats?5588Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I did hear some comments from the ACOSS spokesman this morning and, in part, I agree with what he was saying. He went on to draw out a process that might follow, with which I did not agree, but the concept of reducing the surplus having a detrimental consequence upon the less well off is something that I agree with. That is why we have sought to put the surplus in place, against the continuing opposition of the Labor Party—in order that the total community can benefit, and particularly those who are less well off.Obviously, if you bring mortgage rates down to their lowest level in 30 years, you have corresponding reductions in rent and less well-off people are better off than if you have interest rates at record highs, as they used to be under Labor governments. Why were they at record highs? Because Labor did not worry about huge borrowings. That is why Labor left $80 billion of debt from only its last five years in government. We have a different economic approach. If Senator Faulkner has suddenly crossed the road and decided that prudent economic management is sensible, then we heartily agree. We applaud this sudden change of attitude of the Labor Party.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you going to give the guarantee?BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, what I am saying to Senator Faulkner is that we will not waste a surplus that has been hard won for the benefit of all Australians, particularly those not so well off.5588Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note again the minister is unwilling to give the guarantee. Minister, among the comments that you indicate you heard this morning, are you aware of these, and I quote Mr Raper again:The only equitable way to pay for the food exemption is to cut the proposed tax cuts or close down the number of unfair income tax avoidance loopholes . . . Does the minister agree that one such avoidance loophole is the tax abuse of family trusts? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate reaffirm the commitment given by the Prime Minister in the ANTS package that the government will tax trusts as companies?5589Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Tax abuses through trusts are not condoned by this government. In fact, we have taken action to counter it—contrary, again, to the record of 13 years of Labor. We at least are on the track of reducing loopholes and answering abuses. We are taking positive action in that direction. The less well off in Australia are those that are designed to specifically benefit from the ANTS package, because unless we can ensure continuing economic growth we will not increase the size of the cake from which they can get their fair share.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I asked a direct question to Senator Hill—whether Senator Hill would reaffirm the commitment given by the Prime Minister in the ANTS package that the government will tax trusts as companies. That is the supplementary question. Could you ask the minister to actually try to answer it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I do not ask him to try to answer it. I draw his attention to the nature of the question, and it is for him to determine how he answers it.BH4Senator HILL—I have answered the question—that we will protect the surplus. We will not buy deals with the surplus. We are not interested in that. What we are interested in is a sound economic package which will enable the cake to grow, so that the less well off can be sure of a growing share.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Could you direct the minister to answer the question I asked, not any other question—the question of whether the government will tax trusts as companies. That is the supplementary question. That is the question we are entitled to receive an answer to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister is aware of the supplementary question. I cannot direct him how to answer it. He answers it as he sees is relevant.BH4Senator HILL—If I have any time left, I also want to point out to the Senate that the income tax cuts are critically important as well. (Time expired)55895589Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that today is the last day of operation for the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition? Is the minister also aware that AYPAC has successfully operated in this country since the years of the Fraser government and, unlike this government, former governments—coalition and Labor—have recognised the value of an independent youth research, advisory and liaison organisation? Can the minister confirm that there will no longer be an ongoing youth policy research, advocacy or liaison body in this country?5589Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—What I can confirm is that there was a very successful youth roundtable forum held earlier this year in Canberra. Senator Stott Despoja will recall that, because she was there.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease making so much noise.9X5Senator ELLISON—That involved young people from all over Australia providing their views on a number of topics. In fact, I think at the dinner Senator Stott Despoja and I actually shared a table, talking to some of these young delegates, who I think had some good things to say. What that youth roundtable will do is provide ongoing advice to the federal government in relation to matters affecting them—matters as wide-ranging is things touching on the Constitution and the system of government right down to lifestyle. That was a great success, and one which was heralded by all. In fact, I made contact with some of the delegates from Western Australia who had been there, and they reported to me that they found that forum to be very successful indeed.But on the subject of youth, this government has done a great deal for young Australians, especially in the job pathways, or job placement, program—$60 million assisting some 40,000 young Australians in going from school to work.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. It was a very specific question about ongoing national support in the form of advocacy, liaison and research for young people. We are all interested in employment opportunities for young Australians, but this question, hard as it may be for the minister, is very specific.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Government senators will come to order. Senator Ellison, I draw your attention to the question.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, by her question Senator Stott Despoja is implying that this government does not have any interest in youth affairs. I do think it is relevant to point out to the Senate what this government is doing for young people in Australia. So I have touched on the youth roundtable forum that we had here in the national capital, and the success of it. But I also need to point out to the people of Australia who are listening to this broadcast that this government is vitally concerned with youth affairs in this country, despite what Senator Stott Despoja is saying. I think that the program I mentioned, placing 40,000 young Australians in jobs, indicates that level of interest. It is highly relevant to the question that Senator Stott Despoja has raised. We are interested not only in research and advocacy but also in putting the runs on the board in helping young Australians find jobs.5590Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware then that the youth roundtable delegates have no access to ongoing support? They are not even reimbursed for interstate telephone calls, yet they are being expected to compile detailed research reports on national issues—not simply community issues—of immense policy significance, such as youth suicide, without government assistance. Is this the minister's idea of providing ongoing and national support for young people, especially when it comes to advocacy, research and liaison?5590Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I would remind Senator Stott Despoja that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs has youth officers across this country who are providing support to these delegates. In fact, I can say that when they came to see me in my office they were accompanied by one of these officers. When I was the minister for schools and training I saw the work that these Commonwealth officials did across the country. They are giving assistance. I would say to Senator Stott Despoja that ongoing assistance is being given to these delegates and the government is listening to what they say.55905590Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Now that the minister has had the opportunity to confirm that Telstra is in fact planning to close a number of operator assistance call centres, can he inform the Senate how many call centres will be closed and where they are located? Further, can the minister explain why Telstra has decided to delay any formal announcement?5590Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think I indicated to the Senate yesterday that it is very dangerous if you simply rely on your union mates for what you like to think is a serious question. You get this propaganda stuff served up to you all the time; maybe some people are playing games, but you really should check it out first.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The evidence is there.LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know anything of any plans that you want me to confirm. Since late last year, Telstra has been considering ways of improving operator assisted services, which is an area that includes call centres.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bishop has asked a question and wants to hear the answer.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is his second question in six months. He is probably entitled to have a bit of a go. Since late last year, Telstra has been considering ways of improving its operator assisted services business.AW5CARRSenator Carr—By closing it? Is that how they do it—by closing it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr! You are shouting and you do not have the call.LD4Senator ALSTON—Stick to the John Curtin if you want to shout.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Alston! You stick to answering the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—The outcome of this consideration, Madam President, is that Telstra has now decided to focus on growing this business—growing, expanding, improving; in other words, recognising how important—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Closing call centres down.LD4Senator ALSTON—There you go. What can you say? I say `expanding, growing'; he says `closing'—it is a complete waste of time. I do not know why we have compulsory education, Madam President, if someone says to you, `Growing means expanding,' and you say, `Oh, I have got it: closing.' No wonder you failed all those exams. No wonder they threw you out of primary teaching. But you should not come in here and inflict your lack of knowledge on us. The outcome is that Telstra has now decided to focus on growing—growing, right?—this business and on improving—improving: making better—its existing outsourcing arrangements. Any changes in its OAS infrastructure will only be made once it is determined how successful its business growth strategies are.Telstra has advised that the strong regional presence of OAS call centres is one of the keys to their success. In other words, Telstra sees call centres as a big growth opportunity, and so do many other carriers around the world. Australia is trying to be competitive in this area. And what do this lot do? They get out there and they call them sweat shops. They bag them because, after all, these are areas where you may not need to be a union member to sign up. That is a criminal offence, if ever there was one, for the union movement.So the last thing you want to do is to encourage a sunrise industry that actually has serious potential, where average earnings are in excess of $30,000, where the majority of people have tertiary qualifications, and where the jobs are only going to get more highly skilled as time goes by. But no; you want to bag them. You want to condemn people to second-class jobs. You do not want to see these new sunrise industries prosper at all. What was Mr Beazley on about, at Australia Unlimited, if he wants to welcome new sunrise industries on the one hand and then sit on his hands and allow these flunkeys to go around bagging call centres?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, withdraw that remark and address your remarks to the chair, please.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I withdraw that remark.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, $30,000 is certainly a significant sum of money. It is probably a lot more than you ought to be paid on a performance pay basis, but—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, that is out of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that Senator Alston has not been called to order when he continually makes those sorts of remarks across the chamber. I draw to your attention that he has been constantly abusing the chair, as is his usual practice. Opposition senators do not much care, but it is your job, Madam President, to uphold the standing orders and I ask you to do so.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, day after day in question time, Senator Faulkner rises to his feet and makes a commentary on the answers given to questions by members of the government. I would like to know under what standing order Senator Faulkner can stand up at any time he wishes at question time on any given day and give his commentary on question time. If he wants to be a commentator, he should go over there into the ABC box and become a commentator.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! A number of breaches of the standing orders have taken place. Questions should be asked to the chair and answers should be given to the chair. There have been breaches of both of those. Gratuitous comments should not be made by any senator in answering a question, or thrown across the chamber at any other time during question time.LD4Senator ALSTON—I congratulate Telstra OAS management for working so closely with staff by keeping them informed and ensuring that they do feel part of the change process. The information I have is that OAS staff are strongly supportive of Telstra's directive. Such open communication does leave open the possibility of others to deliberately misrepresent what information might be conveyed. They are the hazards you run. If you want to act on information that has not been verified, then you take your chances.5592Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister seems to want to avoid the real issue about operator assistance call centres. If he cannot answer this supplementary question perhaps he will take it on notice. Did the minister at least check with Ms Judy Slatyer, Telstra's Managing Director of Operator Assisted Services, about her statement to Telstra staff that call centres would be closed? If he did not, doesn't this demonstrate his complete disregard for the employment and regional impacts of Telstra's operations?5592Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, I have not checked with Judy Slatyer.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Why didn't you call?LD4Senator ALSTON—But I just happen to have some information made available to me that draws on what Judy Slatyer has said on this matter. She said:As I mentioned in February, during October to March this year we considered a number of ways of improving our business in order to give it a more secure future. The outcome is that we have decided to focus on growing our business and on improving our existing outsourcing arrangements. Any change to our infrastructure will only be made once we have determined how successful our business growth strategies are. In taking decisions about our call centres we will always take into account the productivity of our regional centres and the contributions they make to our business.She was the source of further additional information that I provided to the Senate. There you have it straight from the horse's mouth. If it is not good enough, I am sorry.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Madam President, I ask that the minister table that document.LD4Senator ALSTON—No.55925592Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Leader of the Government. Is the government aware of the growing concern amongst the Australian community about the conduct of the bombing raids by NATO in Yugoslavia and in Kosovo, particularly about the collateral damage that has been caused? In respect of that clinical term `collateral damage', is the minister aware that recent bombing collateral damages have included loss of life or limb of men, women and children—innocent victims—and also a group of people who were meeting in opposition to President Milosevic? What is the situation so far as Australia is concerned? Does it have any influence on the conduct of the war in Yugoslavia and Kosovo?5592Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We would understand the concerns of the Australian people about so-called collateral damage—a cold expression meaning the death of or harm to innocent civilians. Unfortunately, in all situations of war there is collateral damage. Whilst we obviously very much regret it, and hesitated in saying so, we accept what NATO has been saying, and that is it has been making every effort to avoid collateral damage or injury to innocent civilians.The real issue is: how can the bombing be brought to an end and the people of Kosovo able to return to their homes? I think it is worth remembering whenever we address this issue that the bombing was instituted because of the appalling human rights abuses that were occurring in Kosovo. As I understand it, about a million people now have been displaced from their homes and most have been driven out of their country. The belief of NATO was that there was no other alternative to answer those abuses, that the attempts of negotiation and dialogue had failed.The question now is: what is the way forward? There are those who are arguing for a pause in the bombing as a step towards a negotiated settlement. It is obviously the view of NATO, if one reads the latest statements coming out of NATO, that they believe that would simply be counterproductive, that it would be interpreted as weakness and it would not achieve the outcome that we are all seeking.The conditions that NATO has set down—and I remind honourable senators—for a cease in bombing are: a verifiable stop to all military actions and the immediate ending to all violence and repression; withdrawal from Kosovo of the Yugoslav military, police and paramilitary forces; the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence; the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons; and a credible assurance of Milosevic's willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords towards a political solution for Kosovo in conformity with international law and the charter of the United Nations.NATO has not varied from those five conditions. They are well known to President Milosevic. The solution continues to lie in his hands. As soon as there is an indication that he is genuinely prepared to meet those conditions, then NATO will respond positively. NATO obviously does not wish to continue this bombing any longer than is absolutely necessary and obviously does not want to cause collateral damage.Unfortunately, the solution lies in the hands of the Yugoslav leadership. We would urge that they respond to the requests and demands of the civilised international community in order that the bombing might then cease, and those that they have driven from their homes might be able to return to their homes and return in a way which they can be assured that they can live in a peaceful and safe way.55935593Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that the National Council on Intellectual Disability recently held a forum that unanimously passed the following motion:That this forum has no confidence in the Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services;That her failure to secure the funds needed to address the crisis being faced by over 25,400 people with disability and their families leave families and people with disability with no confidence that she is able to represent them in cabinet and to the Australian community.Why is it that the people the minister claims to represent have absolutely no faith in her or her capacity to adequately represent their interests? Would the minister agree that the Commonwealth's continued delays and excuses for failing to take the lead and to formulate an achievable agenda to address the unmet need crisis are starting to wear a little thin with people with disabilities, their carers and families?5593Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have seen a report of that, but I have been advised by the organisation that in fact the report that was in the press was not strictly accurate.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I do not think they really want an answer, but I am prepared to try to help them with some information. The situation is, as I have answered twice at some length in this chamber over recent weeks, the ministers responsible for disability services of one kind or another at the federal and state levels all met together some weeks ago. The Commonwealth advised the states that the Commonwealth government had taken a decision to contribute to meeting the unmet need for disability services, even those that were directly the responsibility of the states.Only one other government came to that meeting with any sort of in principle commitment to meeting unmet need. However, everybody was prepared to sign on to a communique which acknowledged that there was a shared role between the state and the Commonwealth governments in meeting this unmet need which has been building up for about the last couple of decades, most noticeably during the 13 years of Labor's rule.I am saddened if any organisation with which I work has any kind of criticism to make of my stewardship. Nevertheless, I have spent the six or so months since I got this job consulting widely with the disability community, with the carers, with the consumer organisations and with the providers of services.BH4HILLSenator Hill—You are doing a good job.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I thank you, Senator Hill. I try very hard to do a good job.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Keep up the good work.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Senator Alston, I will try to keep up the good work. I am pleased to see that some state and territory governments have begun to recognise their responsibility to share the problem of unmet need, as we agreed at the recent ministers' meeting. The ACT government has announced a further $1 million each year for disability services in recognition of the unmet need. The Victorian government has announced an additional $5 million for community based accommodation, associated day programs and training programs for people with disabilities in their budget that they handed down on 4 May. On 6 May, the Western Australian government's budget committed $151.7 million for this coming financial year, which is similar to the level of funds that they declared under the second Commonwealth-state disability agreement.But the funds that have been tabled are just a start to dealing with the problem of unmet need, and I expect that states will show further commitment down the track. The Commonwealth will be making an additional contribution, as I said at the beginning, over and above our budget commitment of $20 million to the carers of profoundly disabled young people. We will be doing that later this year on the basis that the states and territories also make significant contributions. I trust that the disability community, who have a greater understanding of the long time that this unmet need has accumulated, will recognise that the governments of Australia have a difficult job to do to meet that unmet need but are ready to take their shared position.5594Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. At the state and territory disability ministers meeting of 9 April, which I suspect is the one the minister was referring to, the minister made a commitment to return to the states and territories at the earliest opportunity with a funding proposal to address the unmet needs issue. What is the minister's definition of `earliest opportunity'? How soon can people with disabilities, their families and their carers look forward to getting the assistance and leadership they so desperately need from the Commonwealth?5594Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Let me reiterate: we are dealing with yet one more mess left to this country by the ALP. It is hypocritical in the extreme for these pious questions to be asked which bear no recognition of the realities of the situation. Labor left unmet needs of an enormous quantity to the people with disabilities in this country. Now it is the responsibility of the new government to deal with it, and we have undertaken to make our contribution and to have the states make theirs.55945594Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. I ask: what action has the Howard government taken to support and encourage the efforts of Australian industry to improve its environmental performance?5594Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The subject of sustainable development and the contribution that industry can make does not necessarily receive the same high profile as other environmental issues but is vitally important. I appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge the leadership that is being shown by Australian industry in the great challenge of achieving sustainability. Sustainable development, of course, is economic development that takes into account environmental consequences and also contributes to social benefits. The triple bottom line, as it is referred to, is vitally important, and when Australian industry does show leadership towards those goals it should be applauded.In particular, I wanted to mention the role being played by the Environment Management Industry Association of Australia. This is basically Australia's environment manage ment industry providing solutions in both technical and management terms to our environmental problems. It is a small industry but with enormous potential to grow and provide jobs for Australians within this field in its contributions both domestically and internationally. In international terms, the provision of environmental technology and expertise is an enormous and growing industry and opportunity for Australians.The Environment Management Industry Association of Australia has sponsored a Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development to be held in this building tomorrow, in which Australian business leaders will get together and seek to learn from each other's experiences and adopt best practice. It is good to see Australian industry operating in this way, and it is something that we strongly support. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development some years ago adopted the terminology of eco-efficiency as a way in which they could encourage industry to adopt sustainable principles within its business. Basically, it is the language of business, because economic efficiency is so well known to business; it is the efficient use of financial resources. Ecological efficiency—how to use the natural resource base of a country more efficiently—is language that business can understand as well.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—This is why Ross asked the question—he could understand the business language, could he?BH4Senator HILL—I am pleased that that has been taken up by the OECD, Senator Schacht, it might not be of interest to you. The OECD is now interested in developing the principles of sustainable development rather than simply just economic growth. We as a government have been pleased to support the OECD in this challenge. In fact, we sponsored a workshop of the OECD earlier this year. Within Australia, it is developing examples of best practice that can then be sold to businesses throughout the world.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht! I call you to order.BH4Senator HILL—The Business Council of Australia will be meeting a little later this year with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to promote the concepts of eco-efficiency to Australian business. The Australian Industry Group met earlier this week in Brisbane promoting similar concepts. This is something that should be recognised and applauded. When all Australian business operates in a way in which it seeks to achieve its economic benefits consistent with good environmental outcomes and good social goals, then the community as a whole will be better off. What I would suggest to Senator Schacht is that, if he and his colleagues start to take this issue seriously, they will be making a positive contribution to encouraging Australian business to build in a sustainable way. It is one of the great challenges not only for Australian business but for global business as well. (Time expired)5595Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister further advise the Senate on how the environment will benefit from the Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development to be held in Canberra tomorrow?5595Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I applaud Senator Lightfoot's interest in this subject.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—I regret that the Labor Party has no interest in it at all. Sustainable development should be something of interest to all Australians. One way in which the government can assist is in providing tools to Australian business to facilitate this goal. The provision of a national set of principles for environmental reporting would obviously be helpful, and we are sponsoring the development of such a list.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Persistent interjecting is disorderly. There is a time for you to comment on these matters, and it is not now.BH4Senator HILL—Helping industry groups to provide staff who can assist their clients—different industries within Australia—to adopt the principles of sustainable development and environmental reporting equally would be helpful, and we are helping in that regard as well. We will work in partnership with business to achieve these goals. We on this side of the chamber are actually interested in this subject, which is in stark contrast to the uninterest of the Labor Party.55965596Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services 1999 found that between 1996 and 1998 the Commonwealth's real recurrent expenditure per hour of long day care fell in all the mainland states? Is the minister aware that the national average reduction was 21c per hour, from an average of $2.18 to $1.97 per hour? How can the minister justify this 10 per cent cut in funding to the programs which serve such a large number of Australian families?5596Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am interested that the opposition is asking questions again about child care. I noticed that after the Senate committee inquiring into child care delivered its report—in which the Labor dominated committee actually endorsed the government's actions in removing operational funding from community child-care centres—we did not hear any more for a long time, not a single word. So the scare campaign and the misinformation that was put about by the opposition about child care have simply deceived Australian families about the contribution made by their federal government.The important facts to remember are that, while the government does not control child-care fees, it did have a fee freeze in place until 1 April and that has now gone. In the meantime, the centres have put up their fees as they have done in the past. Currently, I think the average weekly fee for full-time care is $163 in long day care centres, $169 in community based centres and $162 in private centres. For family day care, the fees on average are $28 a week lower.From 1991 to 1998, the centres have increased their weekly fees for full-time long day care on average by seven per cent, or $8 a week each year, representing a total increase of 56 per cent—well in excess of inflationary indicators, such as the consumer price index and the average weekly earnings. Over the same period, 1991 to 1998, government assistance has increased by 29 per cent, which is double the increase in the consumer price index. The government makes a very significant financial contribution to the child-care costs of low and middle income families through child-care assistance and the child-care rebate. Of course, families can be eligible for either or both of those. The interesting thing that people should really grab on to is that for low income families—for example, a sole parent earning around $30,000 a year with two children in full-time care—government assistance covers around 75 per cent of the average fee in centres and around 80 per cent of the average fee in family day care.Those are some of the statistics that should be on the public record because, while the senator is talking about material from the Productivity Commission, I would hope that the opposition would make sure that they are very well informed about what is happening in child-care centres in terms of support from the government, the expectation made of the parents, contribution made by the taxpayer and what I think are extraordinarily high rises in child-care fees over the last eight or nine years that are quite out of kilter with the consumer price index and average weekly earnings, both of which should surely be indicators of what the true cost of child care should be.5596Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The opposition is very interested in asking questions on child care, Minister, and we would also be very interested in getting some truthful answers from you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Forshaw, that is an unacceptable comment that you should withdraw.656Senator FORSHAW—Madam President, what part is unacceptable: that she did not give us an answer, or that the answer was not truthful?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The imputation that the answer is not truthful.656Senator FORSHAW—I withdraw the imputation. I have a supplementary question. Minister, I note in your answer that at no stage at all did you refer to the statistics I put to you, which were that the report of the Productivity Commission noted that the real recurrent expenditure per hour had gone down and the national average reduction was 10 per cent. I ask, therefore, whether you could address that part of the question. Further, is it not the case that the only improvement has been by virtue of the fact of taking account of population growth and that, in real terms, the Commonwealth government has cut the amount of money that it spends per hour on each child in child care?5597Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The expenditure by the federal taxpayer on child care has increased each year that we have been in government by significant amounts—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Per hour, Minister. Answer the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—And by year, and it will continue to increase by year for each of the next four years, as is clearly spelt out in the federal budget.Honourable senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—So for the next four years it will be over $5 billion that the taxpayer is contributing to child care.Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Have you got a problem with that, Senator? Is the ALP not happy with that? Do you think that that is mean-spirited?Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—The point is that there has been an increase in child-care centres around Australia—a net 300 new child-care centres.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many people shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I think the opposition is simply grasping at straws and failing to recognise the reality of what is happening in the child-care area. With better national planning, we are putting child-care places where they are needed. Those opposite ignored people who needed shiftwork child care; they ignored people in rural and remote Australia. Those are our priorities, and we are getting on with the job. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous5597559715:03:005597Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have some additional information in relation to a question from Senator Harradine yesterday about specific funding under the Bringing them home report. I seek leave to have that additional information incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The additional information read as follows—The $63 million package involves:. $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 programmes;. in recognition of the importance of indigenous people and others telling their stories of family separation, $1.6 million to the National Library for an oral history project;. 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;. $16 million for 50 new counsellors to assist those affected by past policies and for those going through the reunion process; and. $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and social well being, giving counsellors professional support and assistance.Other portfolios are administering all funding except for Linkup and I am seeking details from them which I will provide as that information becomes available. In relation to Linkup funding, that is a matter for ATSIC, and I am seeking specific information from the Commission which I will also make available.Miscellaneous5598559815:03:005598Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I also have an answer to a question that Senator Woodley asked on 25 May 1999 in relation to difficulties with indigenous education providers in the Northern Territory, and I have received an answer from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs who has portfolio responsibility for this issue. I seek leave to incorporate this answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator Woodley asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on 9 March 1999With reference to the many difficulties indigenous education providers in the Northern Territory are experiencing in attaining funding provided by the Commonwealth for this purpose, will the Minister consider re-negotiating the Indigenous Education Supply Assistance Act 1989 funding in a way which will insure that education providers are not beholden to state and territory government which have a poor record of passing funding on to providers in the past; if not, does the Minister have any alternative proposals which will ensure that funding provided by the Commonwealth to the state and territory governments for indigenous education is passed on to the providers as is intended.Answer:The following information, which assumes that Senator Woodley was referring to the Indigenous Education Supplementary Assistance Act 1989 (there is no Indigenous Education Supply Assistance Act) was provided by the office of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs who has portfolio responsibility for this issue:The Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with the Northern Territory government for funding under the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 for Northern Territory government schools.Non-government schools and private indigenous education providers also have agreements with the Commonwealth government without reference to the Northern Territory government. 559815:04:005598Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Under standing order 74(5), I ask Senator Herron in his capacity as representing the Minister for Aged Care as to why questions Nos 593, 594, 596 to 600, 651, 652, 705 and 706 have not been answered. Some of these questions have been put on notice for over 70 days and we have yet to get any reply. I would like an explanation from the minister as to why we have not received replies.15:04:005598Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I spoke to the minister today to follow up that request from Senator Evans. The minister is aware of those questions from Senator Evans. She stated that, for the most part, they are detailed and multiple questions on interrelated topics. Many have required a significant level of data and information to be extracted from computer payment systems, databases and file records and analysed in some detail, and in some cases the department has only very recently been able to extract the information to prepare a draft answer. The minister is, however, aware of Senator Evans's desire to obtain the answers as soon as possible and is aiming to pass as many answers as possible directly to Senator Evans tomorrow.Miscellaneous5598559815:05:005598Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to a question without notice asked by Senator Conroy today, relating to the cost of books under the proposed new tax system.In question time today Senator Conroy asked, I thought, an important question, a very important question for Australia, of the government. What we have here is the ACCC, the body that under legislation is required to monitor proper conduct by business in Aus tralia, taking action to `persecute'—and I use that word deliberately—an Australian company. The ACCC is persecuting and hounding an Australian company—and why is it doing so?This company is a book store. This company sells books, and there is no wholesale sales tax on books. What does this company do? On its receipts to its customers, it puts the words `books will cost 10 per cent more with a GST'. The government's watchdog on corporate crime and proper conduct in the business world is hounding an Australian company because it dares put on its bills to its consumers `books will cost 10 per cent more with a GST'.If this is an act of political censorship—the government knows that public opinion is running against it; it knows that over 51 per cent, according to the Newspoll, and 54 per cent, according to the Age poll, are opposed to a GST; and it has sooled its corporate watchdog onto an innocent Australian company, expressing its view about a law that will impact on its business—I have never seen a more naked example of it than what we are seeing today. The ACCC has indicated that one of the remedies which may be visited on this company—a remedy in the sense of penalising it—is that damages may be required to be paid to persons who have suffered loss. The people who will suffer a loss under a GST are all consumers in Australia. All this company is doing is alerting its customers that if this law passes—I again reiterate that the Labor Party is opposed it but if against our wishes this law passes—then all of those customers of that book store will be paying 10 per cent more because of a GST. The actions of the ACCC are oppressive. They are an excessive use of force by the ACCC against an innocent company. They attack free speech. They appear—and I stress the word `appear'—to be politically motivated. It is an indication of how sensitive this government is to its waning fortunes on a GST that a corporate watchdog should be used in this way. The minister declined to instruct the ACCC to desist.It is unfortunate that the Australian Democrats are not here for this debate, because there is an important question here for both the government and the Australian Democrats who seem to be the new-found friends of the government in this tax. We put a proposal to this chamber in debating the GST legislation that on the docket a consumer receives at the check-out there should be the price paid for the goods that they have bought, the tax they have to pay under a GST and the total price. We put forward that amendment to the government's GST package because, if that law against our wishes were to be carried, we wanted Australians to know how much tax they are paying on the goods they buy under a GST.Who voted it down? The Democrats and the government voted it down. Both of them joined forces to vote that amendment down. Thus, if this law passes, consumers in Australia will be denied the right to know how much tax they are actually paying on their purchases. Senator Woodley at least had the good grace to admit that the reason why they were voting it down was a political motivation—the tax would not stand if people knew how much they have to pay under a GST. There is a question here of consumer rights, but there is also a question here of political censorship of industry. There ought not be any law against free speech in this country, a law which says that companies are bound not to say things the government dislikes. It is a fact that books will cost 10 per cent more under a GST. Because the government says it will not, it is a curb on the right of that company to say it. Senator Lees joined with the book industry earlier this month in putting out advertisements saying, `No GST on learning; no tax on knowledge; no GST on books.' I commend her for that. That is, in part, the Australian Labor Party's position. We want no GST on anything. (Time expired)15:10:005599Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Yet again we see the opposition desperately trying to continue its campaign against tax reform in Australia. Today it has raised the red herring of purported action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission allegedly being taken against a book retailer for false advertising. Apparently, this retailer has advertised that books will cost 10 per cent more under the government's GST. Senator Cook gets up here and not only rails against the government's tax reforms and GST but also says we are now restricting free speech with the ACCC proposing to take action against such advertising. The fact is that this advertising is false. That is why the ACCC quite correctly is taking this action. RF4COOKSenator Cook—It is not false; it is true.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Senator Cook says it is not. In his remarks today he repeated the falsehood of this advertising that the cost of books will go up by 10 per cent—an absolute lie.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The speaker is misleading the chamber by saying that my remarks are not true. They are true. By the speaker saying that they are not true, that is misleading this chamber and he should withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. These are all debating points.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—As I will show in my remarks, this claim of Senator Cook's is a falsehood, as is the claim of the book advertiser that books will go up by 10 per cent. He says they will go up by 10 per cent because books currently do not have a wholesale sales tax on them, and therefore there is no tax to be removed before the GST is applied. What he ignores is the indirect or hidden effect of wholesale sales tax on the cost of books—as it has a hidden effect on many other goods. Even where there is no actual wholesale sales tax itself levied on an item, the wholesale sales tax still has a substantial effect on the cost of goods. Let us take just as an example the wholesale sales taxes levied on the truck, on the fuel and on the tyres that deliver those books from the printer to the warehouse and from the warehouse to the retailer, which all add to the cost of the books. Transport in this country is one of the big input costs of all goods that are marketed in this country. Whether or not there is a direct wholesale sales tax on any particular good, there is a substantial contribution from the wholesale sales tax with its impact on transport costs.This really highlights the importance of and the need for tax reform, because the effect of the existing indirect wholesale sales taxes that we have is completely hidden. People are completely unaware of the indirect tax they are paying through the wholesale sales tax system. I thank Senator Cook for highlighting the fact that under our existing system we have so much hidden tax that people are unaware of. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to inform people that that indirect tax is there. Of course, it is this wholesale sales tax that will be abolished as a result of the government's tax reform program.There is also a range of state indirect taxes that would similarly impact on the cost of books. They are taxes that will also be abolished when the government's tax reform package comes into place. Let us have none of this nonsense from Senator Cook or from this firm advertising the books that the cost of books will go up by 10 per cent, because it is quite plain that they will not. It is therefore quite plain that the advertising which this firm is undertaking is false in the extreme. Therefore, it is quite proper for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be taking this action against them.The action of the ACCC highlights the way in which the consumer will be protected when the tax reform package comes into operation. In the tax reform legislation there is provision for the ACCC to take action against people who provide goods and services if they do not price their goods or services properly in relation to the new tax package—in other words, if they do not take the wholesale sales tax that is being abolished off those goods before they apply the goods and services tax. A very important role of the ACCC under the tax reform package will be to prevent businesses profiteering at the expense of consumers out of the introduction of tax reform.This whole issue reinforces the hotchpotch of a tax structure we currently have in place—Labor's tax structure that they want to keep going at all costs. They do not want tax reform. The issue reinforces the importance of tax reform and the desperate and urgent need for it. That is what this government has been attempting to achieve. It is about time the Labor Party got on board and supported it and offered some constructive policies instead of opposition for opposition's sake at all costs. We have demonstrated problems with our existing tax system. Senator Cook, in raising this issue, simply reinforces and highlights the urgent need for tax reform. Get on board and support the government. (Time expired)15:16:005601Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—This government stands exposed today for its inaction and its untruthfulness in this chamber. It continues to pretend that the prices that the Treasury calculated for the second year are the same as for the first year. That is the first untruth uttered in this chamber in the last few minutes. All the calculations that the minister and Senator Chapman talked about are second-year price effects—not the real effect that will happen in the first year and not the impact on books in year one. The government likes to quote the ANTS document. The ANTS document uses second-year price effects, not first year price effects.Senator Chapman said `purported'. Let me read to you the letter from the ACCC. Let us see how purported, according to Senator Chapman, this letter is. On ACCC letterhead, the ACCC wrote to the proprietors of Gleebooks on 6 May 1999 and said:Concerns have been raised over the accuracy of this statement—that books will cost 10 per cent more with a GST—particularly as details of the operation of the proposed GST are not yet final.That is an interesting point for a start. How would the ACCC know what the outcome will be? How are they able to judge if, in their own words, they say, `The outcome is not yet final'? But let us not worry about that. They go on to say:The GST, as currently proposed by the Federal Government, includes the withdrawal of several existing taxes, and an allowance for input tax credits for registered traders. Both these factors have the potential to impact the cost, and therefore the final price of new and second-hand goods, in addition to the imposition of a 10% GST. The letter says `have the potential'. The ACCC cannot guarantee this. The ACCC absolutely cannot guarantee that the 10 per cent will not go up. They are motivated purely and simply by their desire to protect the government's position, because they know—and they have admitted it at the Senate estimates process—that they cannot protect consumers.The ACCC exists because perfect competition does not exist in the real world. They went on to say:It is considered that in many cases the introduction of a 10% GST will not result in a 10% increase in the price for a particular good or service.They said `in many cases'. Books, which are currently almost not taxed in any form, may have to go up by 10 per cent. The ACCC cannot even definitively say there is no case. They say: `in many cases'. It is on that ground that they are prosecuting and threatening Gleebooks. They go on to say that they may take injunctions, and that they may offer damages to persons who have suffered loss and other ancillary orders against a bookshop.Contrast that with what happened recently with the health rebate. We saw a $7 million advertising campaign by this government, using taxpayer money, which the ACCC noticed after it had finished was illegal. Following a request from Kelvin Thomson, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, they came up with the following response:The Commission has carefully examined the Government advertising in question and is concerned that representations such as "Private health cover will now be 30% cheaper for all Australians" could potentially mislead the public.No threats of injunctions; no damages against customers. They said:The Commission was also concerned that the Government advertising may have had a "flow on" effect upon the advertising of the rebate by private health funds.No threats at all to private health funds for their misrepresentations. They went on to say:It should be noted that the Commission is of the preliminary view that the Trade Practices Act is unlikely to apply to Government advertisements of this kind. They can go out there, attack a small Aussie battling business in Glebe and then turn around and say, `Oh dear, we can't possibly look at the government.' They said:In light of the action taken by the Department outlined . . . the Commission does not intend to take further action in respect of this matter at this time.One rule for the government when they are caught red-handed misleading the Australian public, but do you dare to mention that Treasury has misled this community on the costings of this package? If you accept all of Treasury's bodgie assumptions, you can come up with a second-year figure that Senator Kemp says is four per cent. But if you net it out for books, it is nearer to 10 per cent—and that is if you assume all of the government's positive assumptions. If you look at some more real-world assumptions in the package, the cost on books with a GST is a 10 per cent increase. The ACCC stand condemned and the minister stands condemned. It is an outrage. They are attacking an Australian small business while they are letting the government get away scot-free. (Time expired)15:21:005602Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—If Labor Party senators, particularly Senator Conroy, had put as much energy into tax reform as they put into advancing their failed arguments, they might have been relevant today. Time and again we hear the ALP bleating about tax reform and proposed changes, but they fail to do anything themselves. Let us look at their package; at what they have put forward. They talked today about a tax on education, and I will go into the issue of booksellers and books at 10 per cent.Senator Cook said that with a GST there should be an indication of how much GST people pay. What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. They ought to be advocating that their ramshackle wholesale sales tax system be up front so that everyone understands it. Every parent who buys equipment for young people at school—pens, pencils, writing pads, notebooks, school folders, erasers, rulers, geometry equipment, computers, software, discs, chalk, or art supplies—ought to be told that they are paying wholesale sales tax on all those items. Not only do they pay wholesale sales tax at the wholesale suppliers, but they also pay wholesale sales tax as it cascades through the production line. It is added on again and again—unlike the GST, which is taken off at each point and only added to the value added component of those goods or services.Those opposite say that the GST ought to be indicated on price tags. Why didn't they do it with the wholesale sales tax? Why don't they tell people about this ramshackle system that they are supporting? Their policy was merely to take wholesale sales tax off orange juice and put it on caviar. It is still on babies bottles—they didn't take it off that—but they took it off orange juice and put it on caviar. That was the total sum of their tax reform. They made a few tax reforms on capital gains for pre-1985 goods, but they got rid of that two days after the election. They had a tax on Toorak tractors, but they got rid of that after the election.Labor does not stand for anything we are putting forward—it is opposing that, unlike the Democrats who are negotiating with us. Labor has dealt itself out of the argument. The only tax reform it has is taking wholesale sales tax off orange juice and putting it on caviar. If that is the best Labor can do, no wonder it is in opposition—and it will be there for a very long time.I move now to the issue of books. I bought a book the other day and on the receipt was a little note that said that the GST would add 10 per cent to the cost of books. I saw red. Perhaps I should have done more about it. Books will not increase by 10 per cent. When Senator Conroy was speaking, somebody interjected and said that there is no wholesale sales tax on books. There is wholesale sales tax on books—and it cascades through the production line. It is on transporting the raw product to the paper maker, on transporting the paper to the printer, on the printing machines, on the advertising, and on all parts of production of books.It has been estimated that the price increase for publishing and recorded media—that includes publishing books—will be four per cent. We are compensating people for that increase through the pension system, the social security system and taxation cuts. In 1993, the Labor Party jacked up wholesale sales tax on gladwrap, dog food, sweets and all the things in the supermarket that have wholesale sales tax on them—row after row of items that are used by families every day. The wholesale sales tax went up to 22 per cent in 1993. Did the Labor Party tell people about the increase in wholesale sales tax? Did the Labor Party give compensation to pensioners? The answer is no.On the other side of the chamber, people are carping at small parts of the tax reform package, but they have failed to come up with any tax reform themselves. They are dealing themselves right out of this debate with that argument, when even their own people—people like Mr Latham and Mr Tanner—say there should be tax reform. (Time expired)15:26:005603Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition is of the view that the ACCC's comic threats against Gleebooks' campaign against the 10 per cent GST on books highlights the dangers of a competitive regulator getting mixed up in the censorship of political advocacy. One presumes that the ACCC has taken this upon itself on the complaint of someone. I understand that Senator Patterson, who is leaving the chamber, did not put in a complaint, but I wonder if the same can be said about Senator Alston. What does Senator Alston know about the way in which this matter was drawn to the attention of the ACCC?I am particularly concerned by the position that seems to have been taken by the Democrats on this issue. We have heard a lot about the Stockholm syndrome that seems to be developing in this parliament—in fact, some have said that perhaps the whole enterprise should be renamed Colditz Castle, as the level of capture is so great at the moment—and the way in which former enemies of taxes on knowledge and taxes on books now seem to be suggesting that it is possible to negotiate around this question. I am reminded that it was not so long ago that Senator Meg Lees, in a leaflet distributed by the Australian Publishers Association, said:It is nonsense to suggest that education is GST-free when you are applying a GST to the single most substantial education resource that students should have at their disposal—books. Sadly, this example of a lack of understanding and forethought is far from isolated in the tax package.Senator Meg Lees is on the public record as saying that. There are leaflets like this attached to the walls of this building. That suggests to me that that was the view of Senator Lees a little while ago.It is important to highlight how important it is that books remain tax free. Everyone here would, I think, accept the critical role that books have played in history and as agents of democracy. We all understand how important it is for there to be knowledge, and the distribution of knowledge in our society is dependent upon books and accessibility to ideas for both writers and readers. It is one thing to fiddle with the cost of a meat pie or the price of diesel, but it is another thing again to fiddle with access to one of the most important inventions known to humankind—the printed word.The gravity of what I am saying cannot be overplayed. What sort of political party, through its actions and its agreement with the conservative parties in this country, would see one family reduced in its capacity to have access to books? Any party that measured itself against that benchmark would have to say it was an abject political failure. I think we are entitled to think about the consequences of the Democrats signing up to the Tory campaign to restrict access to books by increasing the price of books by placing a tax on knowledge. We are entitled to think about the costs that homes without books will bring to this country and about children who are restricted in their access to books as a result of the tax policies of this government.Senator Alston, who seems so keen to ensure that the ACCC takes an interest in the operations of a particular book company, has said himself just how important the book printing industry in this country really is and what a tremendous success it has been. What sort of success would it be with a tax of up to 10 per cent on books?I think we ought to remind ourselves of what the Democrats said in their report to this parliament just a few months ago. They said:A tax on books is a tax on knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge. In terms of taxing school books, the GST is regressive because it will have the most significant impact on those who already have the greatest difficulty in purchasing school books.The Democrats also said in their report to this Senate:Books are the cornerstone of a literate and well informed society. According to the Australian Society of Authors, Australians are presently the biggest per capita buyers of books in the world.They went on to say:Research points to a strong correlation between the levels of educational attainment in children and the number of books in the home.You are entitled to ask: what are the Democrats doing to support those words in action? (Time expired)15:31:005604McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—There have been some pretty desperate statements made today, none more so than by Senator Carr just then. Senator Carr often comes into this chamber and exaggerates but I think he has really topped even his own record by trying to give the impression that children are going to be without books, that books are going to be burnt. He failed to point out—not that we would expect him ever to bring the true facts to this chamber—that educational books would be exempt under the GST. You failed to mention that first-up. You were trying to make a debating point, but the best points, Senator Carr, are those made when the facts are put on the table. It was like the time former Premier Cain, speaking about you in his book, said how destructive you really are. And now you have brought that sort of destruction to this chamber.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address your remarks through the chair, Senator McGauran.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—In his memoirs about you he said how you destroyed the state, how you undermined his leadership. I quote him:I was to tell Kim Carr in mid-1991 when I saw him—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, would you like to address the chair, please.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Acting Deputy President—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Madam Deputy President, thank you.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Yes, under the circumstances you have there, you deserve that title, Madam Deputy President. The comments of the former Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, about Senator Carr are significant in this debate because of the destabilising, unfactual comments Senator Carr brings into this chamber. He did the same thing in Victoria. In fact they have shunted him off to here; they pensioned him off. But I must get in this quote from former Premier Cain:(I was to tell Kim Carr in mid-1991 when I saw him in Parliament House by chance that he could take a lot of the credit for the destruction of Victoria's Labor government. His contribution probably started before the 1988—he started early—post-election discussion, but those meetings certainly played a large part in that destruction.)And I believe he also included one of Senator Carr's great mates, Wally Curran. The other astounding comment was made by Senator Conroy when he said that the reason for the existence of the ACCC is that there is no perfect competition, there is not a perfect market. Exactly right. What sort of revelation is that? That is exactly why the ACCC is there. And to question its integrity is unbefitting of this debate. You can have this debate as much as you like but to drag in the ACCC is unbecoming; it is desperate stakes.One thing we can say about the ACCC under Professor Fels is that they have always acted within the Trade Practices Act; they have never abused their position; and they show no fear or favour. Some big boys have fallen under Professor Fels—like the AMP Society which paid a record $50 million for a breach of the Trade Practices Act. I think they have had Coles Myer before them; they have had the oil companies before them. They show no fear or favour, so if they come down with a particular judgment on some bookshop that has been undertaking misleading advertising they have my support. I do not believe Professor Fels and those he employs would bring down the wrong judgment.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They pick on a little bookshop.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Perhaps you are still dirty about Professor Fels dragging the MUA before the ACCC for breaching the secondary boycott laws.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They didn't.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Then you were screaming too. Are you still holding that grudge, Senator Sherry? The ACCC show no fear or favour. Senator Boswell here in the chamber will testify to that. He has dealt with the ACCC from both sides: making representations for the sugar industry and making representations for the changes in the Trade Practices Act with regard to section 50 mergers. He has dealt with Professor Fels and his crowd and he can only speak highly of their integrity. But you are willing to drag them into this tax debate, as you are dragging in the Democrats. The Democrats can take it; they are in the game. They are now negotiating with the government in the real game. But it is unbecoming for you to drag the ACCC into this debate. I think the Democrats remember what fickle friends you are to the Democrats. You have no friends over the other side. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements5605560515:36:005605Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) relating to a preliminary report on meteorological aspects of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race and to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—This Preliminary Report on the Meteorological Aspects of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race was prepared by the Director of Meteorology in February this year to assist the Coroner and the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia in their inquiries into the event. A copy was also provided to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. The Director of Meteorology advises me that to assist the Coroner's Office the Bureau of Meteorology is conducting further analysis of meteorological aspects of the storm which so affected the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. This completed analysis is expected to be provided to the Coroner's Office by about the end of July 1999.At 1.00 PM on December 26 last year 115 yachts set sail in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. Only 44 of those yachts reached their destination.The destruction caused by a storm triggered a massive search and rescue operation, and ultimately led to six deaths and to the abandonment of several yachts.The weather conditions at the commencement of the Race were favourable for a fast start, with northerly winds over all of southeastern Australia, including Sydney. Nevertheless, there was a cold front approaching the west coast of Tasmania, and on the morning of the 26th of December, race crews were briefed by the Bureau of Meteorology that gale force southwesterly winds could be expected when the front passed over the fleet as they approached Bass Strait.Coincident with the start time for the race, at around 1 pm on the 26th of December, output from the Bureau of Meteorology's high resolution computer model became available which gave the first indication of possible storm force winds in the eastern Bass Strait region. Just after 2pm on the 26th of December the Bureau issued a Storm Warning for an area which included the course to be taken by the Sydney to Hobart fleet. This warning was issued some 18 hours before the lead vessels encountered storm force winds.A Storm Warning is the highest category of warning issued to sailors outside of the tropics (where hurricane warnings are issued for severe tropical cyclones). Storm warnings are rarely issued by the Bureau of Meteorology for coastal waters, and are intended to warn of very dangerous weather and sea conditions.Upon issue, the Bureau of Meteorology's Storm Warning was distributed by radio facsimile, satellite communication systems, telephone facsimile, pager systems, the Internet, coastal radio, and also provided directly to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Eden Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, and the Sydney to Hobart Race media centre. The Storm Warning was routinely updated until the storm force winds dissipated.As required by the agreed international conventions the Bureau of Meteorology's Storm Warnings gave forecasts of average wind speeds in knots and significant wave heights in metres.Average wind speeds are an average of the wind speed over ten minutes and should not be confused with much briefer, but stronger, gusts. The significant wave height is the average height of the highest third of waves and should not be confused with the occasional rogue or king waves which may approach twice the significant wave height.The Bureau of Meteorology's storm warnings were for winds to 55 knots and waves to 7 metres.During the course of the race the Bureau only received one meteorological observation indicating conditions worse than those forecast. At 9am on Sunday the 27th of December at Wilsons Promontory the wind speed peaked at 79 knots. Because of the elevation of this observing station (around l00m above sea level) and because of other local effects (the observation is taken at the top of a sheer cliff), the Bureau of Meteorology does not consider this reading to describe accurately the conditions being experienced near the sea surface over the open ocean.Since the race there have been reports of conditions more severe than indicated in the Bureau of Meteorology's Storm Warnings. These reports will be considered in the extended analysis now being prepared by the Director of Meteorology.This Preliminary Report does however show that on the basis of the meteorological evidence available to the forecasters at around 1 pm on the 26th of December, the storm warning issued by the Bureau of Meteorology was an accurate and timely forecast of the severe conditions that were to emerge the next day.Discussions since the event have shown that not all sailors fully understand the meanings of average, or mean wind speed, and significant wave height. Some would also appear to have a limited appreciation of the severity of conditions to be expected when a storm warning is issued. The Director of Meteorology has advised me that the Bureau of Meteorology will intensify its efforts to ensure that the sailing community has not only access to high quality meteorological information, but also a high level of understanding of the implications for them of that meteorological information.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I table the statement and the preliminary report by the Director of Meteorology on the Meteorological Aspects of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race and seek leave to move a motion.Leave granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents. Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents56065606560610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the Auditor-General's report No. 44 of 1998-99: Performance Audit—Naval Aviation Force: Department of Defence.Committees5606560610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Tierney Substitute member: Senator Gibbs to replace Senator Denman for the consideration of the 1999-2000 Budget estimatesEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Brownhill to replace Senator Crane for matters relating to workplace relations and small business on 7 June and 8 June 1999Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Hogg Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Mackay for the consideration of the 1990-2000 Budget estimates from 1 June 1999.Bills5606s565606Debate resumed from 24 February 1997, on motion by Senator Woodley:That this bill be now read a second time. 15:39:005607Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—This legislation is designed to look beyond the strategic and economic benefits of defence cooperation and arms transfers. It is designed to address a very real problem that Australia has, and that problem is the possibility that human rights abuses will occur because of equipment, training or weapons supplied by Australia. It is designed to hold accountable the recipients of any equipment and aid that come from us.Senator John Woodley initiated this bill in 1997 as a revision to the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill introduced by Mr Garry Gibson in the House of Representatives. These bills were presented in response to a 1994 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report which we believe gave an unbalanced weighting to the economic benefits of defence exports. I was a member of the committee that looked into those defence exports and along with Mr Gibson and, I think, another four members of the committee, including Senator Margetts and Senator Reynolds, I put in an additional report which gave more force to benefits other than the economic benefits of defence exports.Senator Woodley gave a detailed review of some of the past Australian arms sales and defence cooperation activities when he launched his bill in 1997, but as that was quite some time ago I will give a brief summary of some of those points. In 1990 the then defence minister announced the sale of obsolete Mirage fighters and ancillary equipment for $36 million to Pakistan. That was despite the likelihood of ongoing hostilities between India and Pakistan. Trade relationships were not made any easier by that.In 1989 Australia sold aircraft engine parts to Burma where the then SLORC—now the SPDC, the State Protection and Development Council—presided and still presides over notorious human rights abuses. Australia has also sold arms to desperately poor nations such as Namibia and Bangladesh. In addition, Australia sold 7,000 `non-military' rifles to Singapore in one year. This is a country with tough gun laws where no hunting is allowed. As Australia has distanced itself more from the Bougainville conflict, PNG has started buying arms from Singapore.Today I want to focus more on defence cooperation, that is, the training and the development that our armed forces provide to other nations. We have often heard the argument in favour of unconditional defence cooperation. It goes along these lines: we can educate other countries in our democratic ways through training and providing equipment for that country's military forces and through our training and influence they will come to a better understanding and practice of democracy and their human rights transgressions will fade away. Let us talk today about one of the biggest recipients of our defence cooperation, Indonesia, and then we can judge the merits of this argument for ourselves.As early as 1970, Australia was targeting Indonesia for the largest amount of defence cooperation. Even then Australia was supplying Sabre jets and Army surveying teams to map its regions. I have recently read a report by Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor, ASIET, which gives a detailed history of Australian and Indonesian defence cooperation. I will point out from that report a few highlights of our history of defence cooperation with Indonesia. Since 1970 there has been only one short interruption—between 1986 and 1991—of that defence cooperation. After the November 1991 Dili massacre, the US Congress cancelled the US provided training programs in Indonesia. Fortunately for the Indonesian military, Australia was happy to take over from the US.The Australian Special Air Services, SAS, and Kopassus, the special services of the Indonesian military, have held joint annual exercises since 1994. I think they have been suspended now—I hope so. Kopassus is the most highly trained part of the Indonesian military. They have benefited from training in rappelling from helicopters, special communications training and advanced shooting drills in Australia.In 1995 the Shoalwater Bay training area played host to a land exercise involving Australia and Indonesia entitled Swift Canopy 95. Indonesian troops also participated in Kangaroo 95 that year.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—They should be ashamed of themselves.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—They should indeed, Senator Woodley. The two air forces regularly hold joint exercises. Also in 1995, former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the then President Suharto signed the agreement on maintaining security. This agreement was to enable joint operations. It was followed up by a 10-year future directions agreement, the aim of which allows a further increase in training and exercises, logistics cooperation, intelligence exchanges, defence procurements, defence science and technology cooperation. It is also designed to increase the functionality of ABRI's own combat organisation and to enhance the ability of co-deployment.Australia also trains hundreds of Indonesian officers every year. Between 1991 and 1997, the number of Australian trained officers has grown from five in a year to 400 in a year. Last year, 16 of our Army's commissioned and non-commissioned officers went to Indonesia to conduct a `train the trainers' program.Now let us have a look at some of the human rights abuses that have occurred in Indonesia whilst Australia was increasing its defence cooperation in the hope that its democratic ways would rub off. For the last 30 years ABRI, the military force benefiting from Australian training and equipment, has controlled `predetermined' elections. It has systematically tortured and intimidated people. If you look at Amnesty International's reports you will find that there is no question about that. In 1975, East Timor was invaded. During that invasion over 200,000 people were reported to have been killed. ABRI has carried out massacres in West Papua, Aceh, East Timor, South Sumatra and Jakarta. In May 1998, Kopassus troops were seen exhibiting their newly acquired rappelling skills: from a helicopter to gain access to a Jakarta university where unarmed students were peacefully protesting. As this was happening, our Australian forces were engaged in joint military war games off the coast of Indonesia. These demonstrations led to the deaths of hundreds of people.Some might point to the removal of President Suharto and a move towards a referendum on self-determination for East Timor as proof that we have influenced the Indonesians and convinced them of the merits of democracy. But before we think of that we should ask the people of East Timor, West Papua and Aceh whether their experiences of ABRI indicate any indoctrination of democratic values or human rights. We only have to look to events of the last few weeks to see how ABRI is looking after its own people. We have witnessed massacres in East Timor where ABRI has either been complicit in or, at best, not failed to stop armed militia groups intimidating and murdering East Timorese. The notion of a free vote under these circumstances where the Indonesian military knowingly is allowing massacres to occur is absolutely farcical.Indiscriminate defence cooperation does not appear to educate and influence anyone to our ways, but it does lend legitimacy to corrupt or cruel regimes. Legitimacy is a very valuable commodity. It is not something that can be bought; it has to be earned. Australia has given legitimacy to Indonesia's ruling elite not only by giving it de jure recognition in 1978 but also by involvement in, and nurturing of, the Indonesian defence forces through defence cooperation. We must ask ourselves whether, in the process of legitimising Indonesia's military, we have tainted ourselves more than we have influenced their move to democracy and to human rights.Successive Australian governments have a track record of providing military aid to repressive regimes. This legislation will ensure that they cannot do so in the future. There is a growing recognition around the world that providers of military hardware training and aid must take responsibility for knowing the outcomes of their transactions. The recipients must be accountable for the way that aid is used. But there must be a consistency in the conditionality otherwise economic and political interests will always hold sway. Defence cooperation will still be given to countries that provide economic benefits to Australia and cut to countries whose trade with us is considered inconsequential. This bill provides the level of constant scrutiny required as well as ensuring ongoing monitoring. It ensures that all cooperative agreements are scrutinised, not just those with the poorer nations.Another current feature of defence cooperation, that of secrecy, will also be removed under this bill. The complete lack of transparency in government deals means there is no control, monitoring or accountability. In fact, the Department of Defence produces a booklet specifying guidelines for arms transfers and indicates that all cooperation be dealt with as commercial-in-confidence. We have heard that before. This is in direct contravention to the UN conventional arms register which advocates transparency and to which Australia is committed.In conclusion, let me summarise the legislative requirements of the legislation proposed by Senator Woodley, and also by Mr Gibson when he was in parliament. Before finalising a defence cooperation agreement or the transfer of military hardware, the government must cause a social impact statement to be made to allow for public discussion. This social impact statement should include, but should not be limited to, a report of the current status of human rights violations, whether by the armed forces or by other formations within the recipient nation; an estimate of the effect of the proposed agreement for defence cooperation on the level of human rights violations within the recipient nation; an estimate of the effect of the proposed agreement for defence cooperation on the level of international tension; the possible breaching of international agreements; and information on the level of health and welfare expenditures as opposed to military expenditures in the recipient country. If the minister is satisfied that all those conditions have been met, he can then provide a certificate.The Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] provides a means of ensuring that any military aid and trade that Australia participates in does not contribute to human rights abuses, that the social impact of such trade on the recipient country is con sidered and that recipient countries are subject to ongoing monitoring of human rights violations.Finally, I note that Senator Woodley has already tabled a document titled `Discussion of legislative aims', and that is, in effect, the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I seek leave to table that document again in case honourable senators have not seen it and would like to have a look at it.Leave granted.15:51:005609Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—In speaking to the bill proposed by Senator Woodley, the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] , I indicate that we obviously have a degree of sympathy with the objectives that Senator Woodley has put into the bill. It in many ways reflects a bill that was introduced as a private member's bill back in 1995 by a former Labor member. But it is one thing to have an approach to ensure that human rights are considered utmost in dealing with the export of arms and the trade in arms and military weapons; it is also important that we do it in a way that brings about an outcome that succeeds but does not also work to the detriment of many of the countries that we would like to see progress. We have been very strong on those issues. Indeed, in 1998 we amended our national policy platform with regard to defence exports. The changes to the Labor Party's policy on defence exports say:Labor will ensure government control over the manufacture and export of arms and munitions. Labor supports the export of Australian defence equipment within strict guidelines. Labor will not permit defence exports to countries: (a) which have an adverse impact on Australia's security interests; (b) which contravene United Nations embargos; and (c) where there is a clear identifiable risk of the proposed export being used for the major suppression or violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms of their own citizens.We also say:Defence exports are important in maintaining local industry support for the ADF and in contributing to Australia's own defence capability. Accordingly, Labor will review the defence export facilitation program in consultation with industry to ensure maximum opportunities for Australian Defence Industry within the strict guidelines required for defence exports. If you analyse how Senator Woodley's bill would be implemented, I have to say it does provide many difficulties. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that the bill would probably preclude any trade in arms and, indeed, probably trade even in non-military type goods. Senator Woodley's bill expands some of the definitions of the Gibson bill of 1995. As I say, that then takes it to an area where it would be almost impossible to implement. In fact, we would probably have difficulty even if we were to do trade with ourselves within certain areas.I listened to Senator Bourne, and I have read Senator Woodley's second reading speech given back in 1997. I think that that overlooks a lot of the practices that are already in place. Senator Woodley referred to a report that was done back in 1994 by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, named Implications of Australian defence exports. It made a number of recommendations with regard to trade in defence weaponry. The government responded—and it was the Labor government at that time—to the report and, of course, changes were made.Senator Woodley also mentions that the Department of Defence has a booklet that sets down the criteria for the export of Australian defence weaponry. The guidelines are headed up `Department of Defence Australian export controls'. It is a general information guide for Australian industry, ensuring Australia's export responsibility. If I can go to the second page of that, it says:In assessing applications for the export of defence and related goods, the following criteria are considered. Proposed exports may be denied if they are to countries against which the United Nations Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly has imposed a mandatory arms embargo; to countries with policies or interests which are hostile to the strategic interests of Australia or its friends and allies, such as countries developing weapons of mass destruction or supporting terrorism; to governments that seriously violate their citizens' rights, unless there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against those citizens in violation of their human rights . . . Of course, having said that, it is quite obvious and it is true that there have been many instances where weapons have been sold and purchased by countries from a whole host of countries that have very high moral applications with respect to trading in weapons and arms. Nevertheless, there have been circumstances that have arisen afterwards that have seen those weapons used against the citizens or some of the citizens of a particular country. The guidelines go on to say:. . . where foreign and strategic policy interests outweigh export benefits. If the goods would be used country to an international agreement, be used in conflict, either internal or external; and if bilateral relations with regional countries could be damaged or if the export would be reasonably judged to adversely affect Australian military capability.It then goes on to talk about what is control and lists the various categories. It then goes on to how export controls are administered. It says:Controls on the export of defence and strategic goods are administered by the Strategic Trade Policy and Operations, STPO, section of the Department of Defence, whilst barrier control lies with the Australian Customs Service.It also is implemented through both the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and there is a group that is overseas—and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. At the end of the day, the final decision rests with the minister. These guidelines were further amended in July 1998. They set down some criteria for denial.Applications to export military goods are considered in terms of Australia's broader interests and will be approved unless the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel refuses the application. Export of military goods will not be permitted: (a) to countries against which—as I said earlier—the United Nations Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly has imposed a mandatory arms embargo; (b) to countries with policies or interests which are inimical to the strategic interests of Australia or its friends or allies. Australia's broad national security interests remain a crucial consideration in assessing defence exports. Countries developing weapons . . . And it goes through that. It also says that exports will not be permitted to:governments that seriously violate their citizens' rights unless there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against those citizens. When you look at that and put it alongside the bill that Senator Woodley is proposing, you will see that many things are already in place. From my point of view it then becomes, in part, an exercise of implementation. Many of the applications and the tests that need to be applied in the export of defence weapons, et cetera, are in place. It really is a matter of how it is implemented. As I said, the guidelines indicate that the minister has the final say.Whilst this legislation is well intentioned—there is no denying that Senator Woodley has put this up in good faith and with the sole intention of bringing about a better world—there are circumstances we have to consider, particularly circumstances with our near neighbours. Senator Bourne mostly spoke about Indonesia throughout her speech, and there are some difficult things happening in Indonesia. Having defence relationships can be very important for the development of those nations. Certainly, no government in Australia has ever entered into a defence arrangement or agreement with the intent of acting to the detriment of a country. We have always sought to act in the best interests of any countries that we have entered into agreements with. Therefore, we have to consider the implications of Senator Woodley's bill along those lines as well. As I said at the outset, I think that, if this bill comes into effect, it would make it impossible for this country to take any course of action in trade in defence weaponry—even in non-military legal goods.In the circumstances with which we are confronted, the Labor Party is also concerned and has always been concerned about human rights problems around the world. That is why we changed our policy in the way that we did. We know that there have been mistakes in the past, and we acknowledge them. Defence cooperation can not only bring important security benefits but also assist many developing countries. We have done that. During his second reading speech, Senator Woodley mentioned Bougainville and PNG. Whilst it did not start off too well, and whilst there have been claims that some Australian military equipment was used to attack citizens in Bougainville, at the end of the day we had the intention of bringing about a satisfactory outcome.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—It did not come about through defence cooperation, I can tell you.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—You may say that, Senator Margetts, but I have to say to you that I think the circumstances could have been a lot worse if there had been no cooperation between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Likewise, with the circumstances that are happening in Timor and in Indonesia, it is important that Australia is involved rather than being not involved at all, simply because we feel that there are breaches of human rights—and there are, there is no denying that. What would the situation be if we were not involved at all? That is what I think Senator Woodley's bill would do. It would preclude us from being involved. From the definition of the bill and the application it would have, that is exactly what would happen.Our position is that any defence cooperation arrangements must be designed to enhance national and regional security or to assist the suppression of violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms of citizens of the countries with which we have cooperative arrangements. It is essential that Australia closely monitors the human rights performances of those countries. And we do—although we may not do it to everybody's satisfaction—with every intention of ensuring the right outcomes.It is probably worth mentioning that last October the current government suspended the joint exercise in cooperation between the ADF and the Indonesian special forces, Kopassus. The government avoided any direct mention of human rights issues, preferring to attribute the circumstances of the suspension of those exercises to economic conditions. We certainly supported that step and considered it an appropriate step. That shows how even existing circumstances can work.Senator Woodley's bill, as I said, is clearly well intentioned but it does pose a range of difficulties. It is easy to put up a bill for the purposes of achieving certain outcomes, but I think it is far more difficult when you are in government to actually implement these things. If you look at the range of criteria that is currently in place—and that is the point: a range of criteria is in place—if you think there is a problem, then it is a problem of implementation. Turning to some aspects of Senator Woodley's bill, section 6 states:(1) The Government shall not enter into or continue any defence cooperation unless the following provisions are complied with:(a) the Minister shall ascertain whether the Government of the State with which it is proposed to enter, or has entered, defence cooperation is using its armed forces or any paramilitary or other ancillary entity as a matter of deliberate policy to deny basic human rights to the people of that State or any other State;In some instances that would be almost impossible to find out.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—As a deliberate policy.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Senator Margetts interjects and says, `As a deliberate policy.' But it would still be almost impossible to find out. If this was the case, these people are not about to jump out of the box and say, `We have a deliberate policy.' We know that where these things happen they happen in a covert way. It would be impossible for the minister of the government of Australia to somehow find out or determine some of these things. But Senator Woodley's bill says:(b) in carrying out the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Minister shall obtain advice in writing from the Department;That is good. I am not quite sure what advice the department would provide. It goes on:(c) before granting an application for an arms transfer or finalising a defence cooperation agreement, the Minister must cause a social impact statement to be made, with opportunity for public comment—the social impact statement must include but is not limited to the following matters: (i) a report of the current status of human rights violations, whether by armed forces or other formations, within the recipient nation;That would be very difficult to ascertain. Even if it happened, even if there had been some trade in arms, if we were able to ascertain it, it does not necessarily mean that if we had already had some arrangement or agreement that we would be to blame for that. If you go through the clauses of Senator Woodley's bill, as I said, whilst very well intentioned—and we support all of the intention—it is something that would not be able to be implemented. It would not work and indeed may have a detrimental effect on some of the countries that we would like to see progress in the world. Therefore, as I said, whilst I support the intention of the bill, I cannot support it.16:11:005612Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—This afternoon we are debating the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] . This is the first time in five years in this chamber that I have been able to get up and say that I agree with a speech given by my fellow Tasmanian Senator Shane Murphy. I echo his comments that there is no doubt that this bill is well intentioned. As the title of the bill tells us, it is an amendment bill. Therefore, it stands to reason that there is currently legislation in place dealing with these very issues. The amendment bill that is before us is unfortunately far too prescriptive, overly prescriptive, and as a result it is unworkable.Senator Murphy in his contribution made some references to the legislation that is proposed in section 6, which is the main part of the bill, the operative part of the bill, and it really does have some very real difficulties in relation to implementation. The bill is premised on the view that Australia has the luxury of being able to make choices between the pure and the impure or between absolute evil and absolute good. At the last election when I faced my ballot-paper I had to allocate preferences. As a result, I had to make choices between what I considered to be the lesser of some evils. I had to make that choice. Senator Woodley would be pleased to know that I think I put the Democrats before the Greens.Having said that, I invite Senator Woodley and indeed the whole Senate to reflect on the question: if this legislation had been enforced during World War II, would we have been allowed to support what I consider was the evil empire of Stalin? The answer is no. But for good strategic reasons we agreed to support the evil empire of Stalin to overcome an even greater evil of national socialism that was a very real threat to world security at large. So Senator Woodley's legislation, in practical terms, would have meant we could not have supported the allies who were, in effect, supporting communist Russia under Stalin because there were clearly human rights abuses in that country.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—We couldn't even support the Americans.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Indeed, as Senator O'Chee says, at that time because of the situation regarding the civil liberties of black Americans, for example, we would not have even been able to assist the United States in the defence of Australia against the Japanese forces, even when they were in the Pacific bombing Darwin, sending submarines into Sydney Harbour. Just reflect on that for a moment, and I think the point is then well made: whilst this legislation may be well intentioned, its practical outworkings would mean that, if it were implemented in 1945, Australia today would not be the independent nation with a great democratic fabric that she is. We would be, chances are, a Japanese colony.On balance, cooperating with the United States was for the ultimate good not only of the Australian people but of all the people throughout South-East Asia and the Pacific islands who were subjected to a lot greater evil than was being undertaken at the time in the United States in relation to the civil rights and liberties of black Americans. So just reflect on what would happen to this great country if—and I say this most genuinely—God forbid, we were ever again in the circumstances in which we found ourselves in World War II.It is so very easy to come up with high sounding and, indeed, well-motivated proposals. But, at the end of the day, they have to be subjected to an acid test, and the acid test is: what are the practical implications if this legislation is introduced? As I said, the practical implications during the Second World War would have had horrendous consequences for this great nation and for our friends in the region.Further reflection ought be had in relation to even if the purest country in the world that had no human rights difficulties whatsoever—perfect in every respect—had to go to war to protect itself against a country that was trying to overtake it or another country in the same region. The fact of life is that, when countries are at war, as of necessity—and this is to be regretted, but it is a fact of life when countries are at war—basic civil liberties, unfortunately, sometimes need to be denied.If this pure sort of country—this country that I am sure does not exist anywhere, that the Democrats would have us imagine—were at war, for the security of its people it might have to deny its very own people certain basic human rights—the right of movement, possibly the right to have an electric light glowing of a night. There might be blackouts insisted upon by the government. There might be control on the movement of their population for their own safety because this so-called pure nation is in a state of war. Then, of course, under this legislation, that pure country would not even be allowed to help itself.So what I would like to inject into this debate this afternoon is reality of what the implications would be if this legislation were implemented. Very simply, the bottom line is that it cannot and will not work. I am heartened by the fact that the Australian Labor Party appears to have taken a similar approach to us in relation to this legislation.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—You weren't surprised, were you?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I have to say to you, Senator Woodley, that my friends in the opposition since they have become an opposition have done huge backflips on tax reform, on privatisation and on other matters. But, on this one, they are staying true to their policies whilst they were in government and are supportive of our ongoing policies.I refer to the second reading speech Senator Woodley gave when he introduced the legislation in 1997 because there are some matters that I believe ought to be addressed. He made mention of the Mirage jet fighter sales to Pakistan, and commentary was made that:Recognising that an outbreak of hostilities might occur and that the sale might contribute to such an outbreak made the sale questionable from the start.But I suppose the reality with some of these sales, like those to Pakistan, is whether you think that, if they had not bought them from us, they would necessarily have got them from somewhere else. That is something that needs to be considered as well.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That's why we should sell pornography, Senator Abetz, because they'll get it from somewhere else.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—We are talking about exports, Senator Woodley. If you are in the business of creating and exporting pornography, you might like to tell us about that later on. The Pakistan regime at the time was involved and concerned with nuclear weapons. So the question is: do you try to assist the country to get some upgraded defence hardware which might even possibly obviate the need for them to go for the nuclear option? We do not live in a perfect world, and sometimes those sorts of decisions and toss-ups have to be made. I am saying this, I trust, in a very bipartisan manner, because the sale—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Because it was Gareth who did it.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—That is right, Senator Margetts, because that occurred under the previous Labor regime. We were then told that somehow this sale jeopardised Indian trade of $870 million. It is alarmist commentary but, if you pull out the trade figures of Australia and India from that date ever since, you see trade has nothing but blossomed between our two countries. It is a good thing to throw in a second reading speech, because most people out there in the community would not be armed with the facts of the trade figures and would just assume, `Gee, that is a pretty strong argument.' In fact, trade with India blossomed, so that argument falls by the wayside.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What is the current situation between India and Pakistan? It has really helped, hasn't it?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Margetts seems to suggest that we in Australia are responsible for the current situation in India and Pakistan. Really, I have to say to you, Senator Margetts, that that is undoubtedly why the people of Western Australia made that excellent decision at the last election and why you will no longer be with us as from 30 June this year.The suggestion was further made that, by providing certain military assistance to countries, we therefore became a partner to the violations in those countries. Does that mean, therefore, that we should not supply them with food, iron ore, coal, paper or any other commodity? What happens if we sell the product to one country which then might on sell it elsewhere? So the sorts of restrictions that are being spoken of in the legislation being suggested by Senator Woodley and the Democrats are that restrictive that we would get into a situation where we would, quite frankly, be dealt out of the world scene and would not be able to make a reasonable and sensible contribution.Senator Bourne made reference to Indonesia. If this legislation were in place, for example, we would not have had the Y2K—the year 2000—computer millennium bug conference that was held in Darwin earlier this year, where Indonesia was present. I had the pleasure and honour of opening that conference. You have to ask yourself the question: if the Indonesians are not assisted to overcome that problem, what sort of social mayhem may arise as a result of us not being willing to share with them our intelligence in relation to the Y2K problem? What you may find then is that the situation in Indonesia is even worse than the scenario that Senator Bourne painted for us during her contribution. This is not a debate about absolutes; it is about achieving what is reasonable and realistic in all the circumstances.As some commentary was made by Senator Bourne in relation to Indonesia, it may be of interest to the Senate and those listening to consider what Australia's human rights policy is. We believe that megaphone diplomacy has no role in this debate. Human rights considerations are integral to the assistance the government provides to the countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The government's commitment to advancing human rights through the aid program has been reinforced by a 30 per cent increase in funding in the 1999-2000 aid budget for the Human Rights Fund to expand our capacity to fund small, community based human rights activities. This was further to the fivefold increase in the Human Rights Fund in the 1998-99 budget compared with the previous year. I think that indicates where this government is coming from in relation to the human rights issue. Rather than using the megaphone, rather than trying to browbeat others, what we are seeking to do in a constructive way is to work and assist them and try to convince them that the values that we seek to uphold in this country are in fact more appropriate for their people.In relation to Indonesia, the government recognises Indonesia as our most important strategic relationship in South-East Asia. It is our closest South-East Asian neighbour and its size and population mean it has a potentially significant role in the Asia-Pacific region. Our long-term objectives are to see Indonesia play a confident and constructive role in regional security and to foster understanding between Australia and Indonesia of our common long-term strategic interests.Defence cooperation benefits both countries. So there are benefits to us and, indeed, to our friends in Indonesia—better mutual understanding of strategic perceptions, and opportunities to develop and improve professionalism of each other's armed forces. Our links are broad ranging and are developed at all levels, and I think honourable senators would be aware of them.An increase in strategic-level dialogue is evidenced by the Australia-Indonesia Defence Forum held in March this year between the senior leadership of our respective defence organisations, focusing on the roles and responsibilities of the military in the 21st century. That demonstrates the high level of trust and respect embodied in the relationship. As a result of the forum, personnel from each country will need to undertake further work on topics of mutual concern. These include armed forces and the law, military education, accountability in command, new trends in civil-military relations and communicating with the public.Under this proposed legislation, those very good initiatives would be denied to the Indonesian defence forces; undoubtedly, those initiatives will be of assistance to them and, indeed, to us. The legislation before us is well intentioned but, in practical terms, not capable of implementation.16:31:005615Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As is mentioned in Senator Woodley's second reading speech, part of the impetus for the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] comes from a report that was put together by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Implications of Australian Defence Exports . I well remember this because I was a member of the committee that drafted this report. That, in fact, was the defence committee, one of the committees of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. That report, after being drafted by the defence committee, of course, was put together by the whole committee.When I looked at this report today, I was reminded that the main report was signed by the then Chair of the Joint Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Loosley; but the dissenting report was signed by Senator Bourne, Senator Reynolds, Mr Laurie Ferguson, Mr Garrie Gibson, Mr John Langmore and me. In fact, I was instrumental in a large part of the drafting of that dissenting report.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—The dissenting report was a jolly good report, I might add.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Thank you. It was very carefully thought through. The issues within that particular report were about the checks and balances in place in relation to Australia's defence exports.A number of witnesses expressed particular concern at the inadequacy of the process as to whether or not Australia did inadvertently—and let us look at it kindly—export defence products to a country having involvement in human rights abuses; that process was not particularly satisfactory because the Minister for Defence and his department were able to choose whether or not there would be a referral. So, when somebody made an application for Defence to export defence related equipment, the application was referred to a standing interdepartmental committee on defence exports for assessment only if Defence thought that was merited.Being aware of the fact that they were looking at the issues of human rights abuses and possible misuse, we asked at the time—as did many other people: why do you give it only to Defence to decide whether or not there is a possible human rights abuse? We used the issue of the Mirage to Pakistan. Also, if I recall correctly, the potential export of grenades to Sri Lanka was stopped because of concerns that were expressed within the parliamentary process.At the time we asked for there to be an automatic downloading between Defence and Foreign Affairs, so that someone in Foreign Affairs would also be able to provide advice. If I recall, that did not happen because we were told that somehow it was too difficult, that somehow there was a problem of communicating between the computers of Defence and those of Foreign Affairs. I thought perhaps that argument was a little contrived. But I did think it should be possible for someone in Foreign Affairs to have their eyeball on each of those applications as they were made, so that alarm bells, if necessary, could be rung before Defence picked it up. If Defence were to see it as a defence export or as a mechanical sort of thing, it would not be part of their role to look at what the other wide implications were—and that concern continues.Unfortunately, the issue with Australian defence exports is not solved and, potentially, it will not be solved as a result of this piece of legislation. The legislation is narrow inasmuch as it deals with the country-to-country relationship between Australia's defence and the defence of another country. So, as is mentioned in the legislation, it does deal with things such as defence training and transfers; and the Australian Defence Force is involved in a great deal of these.It has been of concern to a lot of people that Australia is involved in training the military from other countries where there are particular individuals or forces who will use that training to be more effective in human rights abuse. Senator Abetz indicated that it is impossible to do anything about it. Quite frankly, there was a fairly large inquiry in the United States which resulted from, I think, a television expose of what was happening in the School of the Americas.The School of the Americas had the role of training, largely, military from other parts of the wider Americas, middle America and South America. But the implications were that a number of people were eventually identified as having taken that training and using it to be more effectively involved with human rights abuse within their own countries. This included—would you believe, in the School of the Americas—specific training on how to get information from captive prisoners. It was pretty nasty stuff. But, in the case of the United States, the first step was to find out who was being trained.Why is it impossible for us to find out who is being trained in Australia and overseas? I have discovered that people who are being trained in Australia or people overseas who are being trained by Australian military do not have to walk around with paper bags over their heads. They are allowed to communicate who they are between each other. But as parliamentarians and as a community we are not permitted to find out who is being trained. All we as a community need to know as to whether Australia is knowingly training people who are known to be involved in human rights abuse is who the people are that public money is being used to train.If, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions, the SAS at Swanbourne in my own state are involved in training special forces like Kompassas from Indonesia which have a history of being involved with internal repression and human rights abuse, then questions will be asked. It is reasonable to ask whether or not the very situation that is occurring in Indonesia may not have been made worse by Australian taxpayers' money being used in this form of defence cooperation. This also applies to training carried out in military exercises. While there are lots of reasons for military exercises, it is a question of whether or not some process is undertaken before training agreements are made as to what the outcome of that training will be. I was involved with a committee which inquired into training within the military. The question was often put to committee members, `If we don't train those people who have been involved with human rights abuse, how will we ever expect them to mend their ways?' I asked the question: what portion of that training is actually involved in improving human rights performance? I could not find out. In the end, I could only assume there was a feeling that if people from Australia, New Zealand and other countries that we work closely with were in a room with people from countries which had a record of widespread human rights abuse, then a better human rights performance would spread by osmosis. This would happen just by being in the same room.That is a really interesting theory. But if a better human rights performance is spread by osmosis, then it is very dangerous to put our high military officials in the same room as those people who are involved in human rights abuse, because it could be a two-way osmosis. It could be that our military officials might become human rights abusers by being in the same room. Apparently, osmosis was the only means of spreading a better human rights outcome for those people who were in the same room.It is a question of accountability. For instance, is Australia doing the right thing if we use our defence budget or our aid budget to provide Black Hawk helicopters or to provide assistance and training for people to guard mines in countries where land is being degraded as a result of major environmental travesties? I would argue that is not the right thing for us to do. I would argue people in Australia would be very concerned if they knew that was what was happening to particular elements of our budget. In many cases it has been extremely difficult to find out the details of what is happening with Australian defence cooperation funding—whether it be in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand or a whole range of countries where there have been issues in relation to human rights abuse. It is also a question of whether or not Australia is potentially using its defence cooperation budget perhaps to further an economic interest of Australia at the expense of human rights.Australia must bear some responsibility—not the whole responsibility—if, after giving assistance, a situation of major internal turmoil arises. If we blindly support regimes or, in the case of ABRI in Indonesia, if we support elements of the military who have systematically been involved in human rights abuse, then Australia must share some of the blame.We have heard the argument that a country is innocent of human rights abuses because `our army is operating separately from our decision making'. But the army, which is using quite expensive equipment, might be arming the paramilitary, which is obviously going to cost several millions of dollars. You would have to suggest that the decision to arm the paramilitary to suppress basic human rights has come from fairly high up. Up until now we have turned a blind eye to the whole system in Indonesia by which ABRI has on a number of documented occasions—whether it is in East Timor, West Papua, Aceh or other parts of Indonesia—been used against the citizens of that country in a very specific and very dire way.The intent of this bill is first of all to recognise that that situation is possible and then to suggest that Australia has a responsibility—and I believe it does—to consider what the implications are. There is not just a military implication: there are implications in respect of the signals this is giving to the countries that are involved and in respect of human rights. Unfortunately, a substantial number within the total program have not been open to the extent that it could be seen that Australia was not involved in human rights abuse.I guess you do not have to wonder why there has been so much secrecy about who has been trained, to whom assistance has been given and what specific elements of equipment have been provided to which countries under what conditions. Whenever concern is expressed within this parliament about such things as Black Hawk helicopters being used in Bougainville, there is a problem in getting ministers even to admit that this has happened. Once Australia commits itself to being helpful in its defence cooperation, we end with a minister who, by hook or by crook, defends the actions of the government in providing that defence cooperation.I am very pleased that Senator Woodley has enabled us to debate this very complex issue, because it is one of those things that we hardly ever get to debate within this parliament. Foreign affairs is an issue on which there is often a consensus between the two parties. I remind the Senate again that, even within the ALP, there are thinking people who realise that there are issues in respect of defence exports that are wider than party solidarity—that human rights issues are important and ought to be carefully considered. I thank Senator Woodley for enabling this debate to take place.16:45:005618Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President Murphy, I rise having heard you speak in the debate so eloquently, outlining clearly the position of the Labor Party on this issue. I say to Senator Woodley that, if this was meant to be a debate about human rights abuses in Indonesia, it would have been far more fitting not for the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] to have been brought forward, but for a general business notice of motion to have been the subject of the debate.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—No, because you guys would have denied it.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—You have had your chance. The fact is that we have a bill before us, and that is what this debate is about. I think the debate is substantially broader than the contribution that you have just made, Senator Margetts. My colleague, in describing the bill as being unworkable, was quite correct. Senator Woodley, it may have helped the whole conduct of the debate on this bill if there had been some form of explanatory memorandum so that we could get some insight as to how the bill would work. All I was able to obtain was your second reading speech. Whilst I am grateful for that, I found, when reading the proposal in the bill, that it was basically an impractical bill.Having said that, I share with a great degree of empathy the intention behind your bill, as did my colleague and as was expressed by Senator Abetz. Whilst Senator Abetz found himself in the most unusual position of agreeing with my colleague Senator Murphy, it goes to show that one of the things about defence is that invariably it is a bipartisan issue, and it has been treated in a bipartisan way by both of the major political parties in this country.Senator Woodley, if one looks at the intent of your piece of legislation, one could not disagree with it. The intent is admirable; the intent is fine. But the legislation as it is constructed undoubtedly would achieve nothing more than to box in a government and leave it with no room to move, whether that government be one of the current flavour or a Labor government. That is a position that no government could accept. So, whilst I accept the good intentions of what you have put forward, I believe, as my colleague has already expressed, that the legislation itself is basically unworkable.There is a real need for concern about the issue of human rights, and I will turn to that in a moment. When one looks at the definition that you rely upon, one can see the first problem that we will run into with this bill. As my colleague Senator Murphy rightly pointed out, Labor has quite deliberately tightened its policy on the issues of human rights, our defence cooperation and our defence exports. I think that was a responsible position for the Labor Party to have taken. It has seen what has happened in the past, it knew that it needed to tighten its policy, and it took that action. By the same token, Labor has recognised that there is a need for a balance on the issue of human rights—which does not mean that you allow human rights to be abused—balance in terms of security of needs, and balance in the ability to assess what is happening in a security environment. It is no use being on the outside and being unable to assess what is happening on the inside. Even though one can clearly see that there are human rights abuses in Indonesia—which are rightly being condemned—one of the advantages at this stage is that at least we have not been excluded from the processes that are taking place within Indonesia. But I do not want this debate to degenerate into the issue of simply Indonesia, because it has broader implications. Purely and simply, I believe that the Australian public has a right to know the intent of this legislation.I believe that we should be about obtaining a balance. I am very grateful to Senator Margetts for mentioning the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Implications of Australian Defence Exports, which was the genesis of the legislation before us today. I was glad that Senator Margetts mentioned that there was a majority report which was signed off by the chairman of the committee, Senator Stephen Loosley from Labor. Senator Margetts also acknowledged that there was a minority report which was signed off by Senator Margetts, Senator Bourne, Senator Reynolds, Mr Laurie Ferguson, Mr Gibson and Mr Langmore. It would have been interesting had Senator Margetts continued and told us about the government's response to the report.There are government responses to reports—although the current government is a bit tardy in getting them out, and we are aware of that. However, there was a government response to that report. That government response came from the then Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon. Robert Ray—a very honourable person indeed. Senator the Hon. Robert Ray was recognised far and wide for the acumen he brought to his role as defence minister. Without going into the then government's response, it is fair to say that the response of the government of the day, which was signed off by Senator Robert Ray, basically agreed with the recommendations in the majority report and, to all intents and purposes, disagreed with the recommendations in the minority report. That is the best way to characterise it without going into it in minute detail.It is interesting to look at some of the specific recommendations in the minority report that were disagreed with by the then Labor government of the day. I think they get to the nub of the problem that is facing this legislation that the Democrats have presented here today through Senator Woodley. Recommendation 4.38 of the minority report said:. . . military intelligence work closely with UN arms register and other intelligence organisations, customs and police organisations to assure that there is a truly international and open system for monitoring all aspects of defence trade from manufacture to disposal or use.The response by the then Labor government to that recommendation was:Not agreed. Australia's intelligence cooperation with other countries is a complex and sensitive matter.I am sure those words were chosen wisely and sum up the difficulty of dealing with other nations, agencies and international military forces when in government. The response continues:The Australian intelligence community works closely with intelligence organisations and government agencies of friendly countries in monitoring arms transfers of potential significance to Australia, but the sensitivity of intelligence sources means that much of this information cannot be made public.We are dealing with a very sensitive area where much of the information cannot be made public.Recommendation 4.73 of the minority report involved a recommendation in respect of the Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Defence Exports and the Inter-Departmental Committee on Defence Materiel Cooperation and Exports. It said:SIDCDE and IDCDMCE—they believe in acronyms in Defence—have so far failed to guarantee the international, political and human rights implications will be considered and adequately incorporated into decisions under the guidelines.That is clearly the minority view. In its response, the then Labor government of the day said:Not agreed. The government does not accept the premise of this recommendation that the Defence Exports Committee's system fails to guarantee that international, political and human rights are considered and adequately incorporated into decisions. The wide range of departments involved in the process ensures that all aspects are comprehensively considered, both in informal discussions and within the committees.The then government's response continues after that. Quite clearly, that has not changed even from that day—or so I am well informed and led to believe. Those two recommendations go to show that, whilst I have no doubt there was good intent on the part of those who signed the minority report, the simple fact remains that we are dealing with a very sensitive and delicate area. As was outlined, that led to the Gibson bill of 1995, and Senator Woodley has subsequently taken up the cudgel.I turn now to the legislation. A number of clauses help in understanding a piece of legislation and, in this case, one such clause is the interpretation clause—clause 3. The definition under the clause is very important because it has application throughout the legislation. The definition that is being relied upon here is that `basic human rights' means:. . . those rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and formulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.That is the definition which is being relied upon. A substantial number of articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights go to the issue of human rights. Let us go through some of them. They say:No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.That is article 5. I agree. Tick.Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.I agree. Tick.All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.And so it goes on and on. But as Senator Abetz said, this is the definition that is being relied upon and, if there is a place on earth that is abiding by all of these articles, then please lead me to it; we have found utopia. On that basis, we would not have defence cooperation, we would not have defence relations with anyone because, as my col league Senator Murphy pointed out, clause 6 says:(a) the Minister shall ascertain whether the Government of the State with which it is proposed to enter, or has entered, defence cooperation is using its armed forces or any paramilitary or other ancillary entity as a matter of deliberate policy to deny basic human rights . . . As I say, the basic human rights are covered by a raft of articles for the people of that state or any other state. So while the intent of the legislation is admirable—one could not disagree that the intent is fine—the fact is that the practicality of applying the legislation leaves a lot to be desired. That is why I expressed my concern when there was no explanatory memorandum which may well have taken us around the difficulties that seem to have been created by the bill before the parliament.Let us look at some of the examples of defence cooperation. In the Defence portfolio budget statement that is issued each year with the budget there is an outline of our defence cooperation and our Australian Defence Force exercise program, including our programs with Tonga in terms of personnel projects, training and studies; Samoa; Kiribati; Fiji; Tuvalu; Malaysia; Indonesia; Thailand; Singapore; Vietnam; Indochina. The programs are clearly outlined and clearly subject to scrutiny at the estimates process. I understand from Senator Margetts's proposition that the only thing she cannot get from that process is the name, address and age of all the people from overseas who might be involved in the process. Again, I can understand that there are sensitivities in the divulgence of that information. However, I would be absolutely surprised if the Australians, in their defence cooperation or in their Defence Force exercise programs, were involved in encouraging, inciting or bringing about an abuse of human rights in those nations. One might argue that the program might lead somehow, maybe, to that happening. But that is not the case. Some four pages of joint exercises are proposed to be held over the next 12 months under the auspices of the Australian Defence Force. They are clearly out in the open and subject to the scrutiny of this parliament through the estimates process.At the end of the day, those programs, which are subject to scrutiny and which can be challenged by individual senators, do go ahead and, if there have been abuses out of those programs, then they have certainly not been drawn to the attention of the Senate in my three years in this place. There is no doubt that those programs are important in terms of regional security, Australia's security, and of course in terms of our long-term defence relationships in this region. I want to make a brief statement—CX5MACDONALDSenator Sandy Macdonald—It will have to be brief.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I know it will. I want to make a statement on the human rights issue in Indonesia and the estimates process. At the last estimates I spent up to an hour and a half of the estimates time challenging officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the relationship between the military, the paramilitary and the pro-integrationists in Indonesia and the abuse of human rights in that place. It was a very worthwhile exercise, but one of the things that was noted was the fact that I was the only one doing it; there was no-one else there concerned. So people who do have problems with the way Foreign Affairs are dealing with these issues should turn up to Defence estimates.17:06:005621Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I am always interested to follow Senator Hogg in debate and certainly in this debate. As always he takes a sensible view and a considered approach to human rights. I remember that in his maiden speech he spoke about the dignity of the human being, and he has presented that argument in many of the debates in which he has taken part. He made some interesting points about the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] , which is under consideration, pointing out many of the reasons why it would be impossible to implement. I have to agree with him that the subject of human rights abuse is much more complex than Senator Margetts's contribution would have us believe. In the time that I have been in the Senate, Senator Margetts, who purports to have an interest in defence and foreign affairs matters, has wasted literally hundreds of hours talking in the Senate on both subjects. Every word, I suggest, has disappeared without trace.Worse, she has wasted simply thousands of hours of time of hardworking Defence and Foreign Affairs officials seeking answers to questions on notice that I would swear she never reads. How do I know this? In my time here I have never seen her follow up any of these endless questions that she has asked.I make these very brief comments about Indonesia in connection with Senator Margetts's contribution. Indonesia is our enormous neighbour. It is going through very difficult times of change. We may not agree with everything Indonesia is doing or has done, but we want to be their friend and we want to cooperate in their future for their benefit and for ours. I suggest that Senator Margetts would prefer us to cut off all contact and see them behave in a way that perhaps we might consider totally appropriate but in a situation where we would cease to have any influence whatsoever.Defence cooperation is vital to Australia's strategic and economic wellbeing. Australia's direct security depends to a very large measure on the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. If this region is in conflict, if trade flows are disruptive, if countries engage in arms races—in short, if the efforts to promote growth and stability fail—then Australia's security and prosperity will suffer. It is as simple as that.The government recognises the magnitude of the challenges of maintaining peace in our region—a region not just of fast growing economies but also of complex rivalries and uncertain futures. That means that the government is giving high priority to promoting regional defence engagement with a range of partners. Cooperation is the key to success—not hectoring and antagonism towards those with whom we might appear to have a difference.The government strongly supports the continued strategic engagement of the United States in our region because it believes that the United States will continue to be the most effective force of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. That will be the case for many years—on the Korean Peninsula, in the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China and in the role the United States will play in the emerging strategic role that Japan will have to play in the next few decades. That is the assessment with which Australia's neighbours in the region agree.The closer defence relations initiative with New Zealand continues to develop and was highlighted by the launch of New Zealand's second Anzac frigate in May last year. Defence continues to build and expand its network of bilateral and multilateral relationships with countries throughout Asia and the Pacific in support of these efforts, and the Australian Defence Force undertakes many bilateral and multilateral deployments around the region every year. These deployments ensure that the ADF does its part to build transparency, trust and confidence and that it is seen and recognised throughout the region as an important force for peace and stability.The government recognises that countries of North Asia are becoming more and more important to security in the whole of the region. Defence is expanding its relationships with China, Japan and South Korea, focusing on strategic dialogue and the exchange of information. On China, Defence's policy is to build a solid relationship encouraging Beijing to contribute constructively to regional security.The prospects for increasing regional engagement with Australia's closest neighbours in South-East Asia are very good and they have continued to be good since we came into government. We continue to cement the growing maturity of our bilateral ties with Indonesia and the mutual commitment to managing the differences. The Indonesians are having their election on Monday week and I am lucky enough to have been appointed an observer to see that election take place. Clearly the Australian government is concerned not so much with the outcome of the election but with the process, and that process is being partly overseen by officers of the Australian Electoral Commission, a number of civilian observers and a range of politicians from this place and the House of Representatives. Defence relations with Thailand continue to be productive. Relations with the Philippines are increasingly important. The training relationship is now quite substantial and is still growing. We continue our commitment to further strengthening ties with our close and longstanding friends Malaysia and Singapore under the auspices of the five power defence arrangements.In the South Pacific the Defence Cooperation Program continues to strengthen the ability of Pacific island countries to contribute to their own security in such areas as sovereignty and resource protection. Papua New Guinea is obviously a major focus of our policy of regional defence engagement. The relationship has had its ups and downs in the last few years, especially during the Sandline events and the political crisis that ensued in 1996-97. Following the formation of the new PNG government at that time, our government has endeavoured to ensure that the defence relationship remains on a firm footing. This cooperation extended to the very significant commitment we made during the severe drought affecting Papua New Guinea last year. I will speak more about Papua New Guinea shortly.Our task in defence of our Commonwealth is hard. We have a continent to defend, and interests well beyond it. Our strategic environment is becoming more demanding, our military capabilities constantly need to keep improving. The costs of high technology and high capabilities are rising constantly. Our resources will always be limited and we must find ways to deliver more capability for every dollar that we spend. We need to get the biggest bang for our dollar, so to speak.We have a proud military tradition, highly respected military capabilities and one of the best defence organisations in the world. Our past achievements and present capabilities are not enough to ensure Australia's security into the future. We will need to do much better if we want to provide Australia with the forces that we need.To do better we will need to change. That is nothing new. Over the past 10 years no part of the organisation has been untouched as we become more focused and efficient at almost everything we do. To do better still we will need to do more than that. We will have to change how Defence works to tap into the potential and maximise the contribution of every one of us.That is the fundamental challenge for defence today. A country of Australia's size can defend itself only if we deliver more capability than anyone else does for every dollar we spend and for every person we employ. We can do that only by using our brains better. Defence today is a knowledge and technology business. The edge we seek is the knowledge edge in the broadest sense. Our critical assets are the knowledge, the skill and the innovative drive of the people who defend Australia. Australia's future security depends on our ability to expand those skills and knowledge, it depends on our capacity to learn and it depends on our capacity to talk to our neighbours.I turn now to our defence relations with the South Pacific, particularly PNG. Our close geography and ties provide the basis for our strategic interest in PNG. Australia remains committed to a defence relationship with PNG that meets the strategic interests of both countries. The focus of our defence relationship is on assisting PNG to provide for its own security and on development of the PNGDF's capacity to support PNG government policy. These objectives are pursued through the Defence Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea. The Defence Cooperation Program is progressed in a number of different ways. It is progressed through attache staff; regular dialogue at all levels; defence cooperation-funded ADF advisers posted to PNG; an extensive training program funded by defence cooperation; combined ADF-PNGDF exercises funded by defence cooperation; and regular ADF ship and aircraft visits.The Australian and Papua New Guinean defence ministers announced the establishment of a new defence partnership in a joint ministerial statement in October 1997. Since then, our cooperative defence activities with Papua New Guinea have been structured to support the principles set out in this statement. Our cooperative defence activities are now undertaken within 12 major program areas, each covering a major defence function focusing on strategic planning, defence management and fundamental military skills. The major programs are: strategic planning, force development planning, financial management, career management, training management, base services, command and control, border security, maritime security, internal security, operational support and constructive relations. Each of these major programs has long-term objectives which are progressed through defence cooperation projects and activities such as training, exercises or attachments.Within this framework of defence cooperation with Papua New Guinea recent and forthcoming significant events include the inaugural meeting of the commander PNGDF and the CDF held in Brisbane in April this year; the working level discussions held in PNG in April this year to discuss the status of joint projects and activities; high-level talks planned to be held in Canberra in late May or early June 1999—these talks are designed to facilitate high-level discussions on defence related matters of mutual interest—and a study visit for the mobility capability project to be conducted with PNG in May 1999 to examine current capability and proposed feasible options for implementation by the PNGDF. A study visit for the training management project is planned for June 1999 with the aim of developing a human resource policy framework and training management system. Ex Paradise, which is a combined RAN-PNGDF maritime element exercise, is scheduled to take place in June-July 1999 in PNG. Coordination group talks are scheduled to be held in Canberra in July. These policy level talks establish the priorities for projects and cooperative activities. Working group talks are planned for September in PNG to discuss training projects and detail. Very clearly, there is very close ADF-PNGDF cooperation at the highest level, and it extends far beyond that in terms of the service that is provided by a whole range of Australian firms to keep the PNGDF force operating.Defence cooperation projects, operations and exercises to date include the resumption of exercise Wantok Warrior, a combined ADF-PNGDF land element exercise focused on joint minor civic action tasks, long-range reconnaissance and area familiarisation; the completion of a number of initial study visits for agreed joint projects, including career management, junior officer development and financial management; and an ongoing combined exercise program which currently comprises, as I mentioned, the Paradise series, involving Navy boats, Longreach, a planning exercise on dealing with natural disasters and Wantok Warrier land exercises which have been going on for some time.I turn now to the Bougainville problem. Australia's involvement in the peace process has been quite substantial, and those who have taken an interest in Bougainville can be very proud of the role that the peace monitoring group has played on Bougainville. It is a most difficult situation. I see my colleague Senator Quirke here. We had the opportunity to go and visit the peace monitoring group in Bougainville, and I think that we all came away very proud of the role that Australia has played in pursuing the peace process there. It is a very complex and very difficult situation which is, of course, still going on this very day.To give a little of the history of the problems of Bougainville, the PNG cabinet met on 1 January 1999 to suspend the application of new provincial government legislation—affecting all other PNG provinces—to Bougainville, paving the way for the formation of a Bougainville reconciliation government. This special treatment for Bougainville has not proceeded without tensions or complications, with the PNG opposition mounting a challenge to the constitutional validity of the suspension. Despite this impasse, momentum in the process has continued.Very recently—on 22 April—the Matakana and Okataina understanding was signed in New Zealand by the PNG government and most key Bougainvillean leaders. Parties to that agreement recommitted themselves to the previous Lincoln agreement and set out some additional practical steps for reaching a negotiated settlement.Minister Downer released a statement to the media to welcome this milestone in the Bougainville peace process. Many challenges remain, however, and making substantive progress on issues such as disarmament and resolving political differences will require a sustained commitment from all parties. The operation of the Bougainville People's Congress was scheduled to take place yesterday, on 26 May. The peace process continues to make some limited progress, although it still faces significant challenges. The inauguration, as I said, of the Bougainville People's Congress, the BPC, the body formed from the combination of election and selection, took place yesterday. The BPC will represent Bougainville in the negotiations with the government of PNG as outlined in the agreement signed in New Zealand on 22 April.I mentioned the Peace Monitoring Group's presence, which continues to ensure a benign security environment for the various activities associated with the peace process and which has allowed Bougainvilleans to resume substantially their normal activities. The few occasions when its presence has not been welcomed have resulted from the actions of disgruntled individuals rather than organised opposition on the island. Around 260 Australians—240 ADF; 20 civilians, some of whom are Foreign Affairs officials, some of whom are Australian Federal Police—are currently deployed to Bougainville with the Peace Monitoring Group. New Zealand has approximately 30 persons participating, and Fiji and Vanuatu a combined total of about 20. The UN has established a small political mission on Bougainville, which operates independently of the Peace Monitoring Group.I would like to give a little of the history of the Peace Monitoring Group. Australia's involvement in the current peace process in Bougainville commenced in late 1997 when parties to the dispute signed the historic Burnham Truce in New Zealand. It was agreed at that time that a neutral unarmed multinational Truce Monitoring Group, to be led by New Zealand, would be formed to monitor observance of the Burnham Truce. Approximately 100 Australians deployed to Bougainville at that time as part of the operation, and the original Truce Monitoring Group was, in fact, led by New Zealand.The Lincoln Agreement, negotiated by parties in New Zealand in January 1998, determined that a permanent and irrevocable cease-fire would enter into force at midnight on 30 April, to be observed by a Peace Monitoring Group. In transition to the Peace Monitoring Group, Australia took over leadership from New Zealand and took full responsibility for the provision of logistic support to the operation, including equipment, land, air and sea transport and engineering and medical services—a role it previously shared with New Zealand.Further to Bougainville, I want to make some comments about our other defence relationships and cooperation in the South Pacific. Within the South Pacific, defence relationships have been developed with Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The policy objective for the South Pacific is to strengthen and support sustainable regional and national capabilities which protect the sovereignty of the Pacific island countries. (Time expired)17:26:005625Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this evening. There are several aspects in relation to the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] that I wish to cover. I initially note that it is a timely discussion, particularly given the imminent departure of members of the Australian Federal Police to Indonesia next week. In this field Australia is highly respected. We have a proud record of participation in peacekeeping across the world. We are not ever seen to be positioned in a threatening role. We have been welcomed, done very valuable work and generated extensive feelings of goodwill. I know that our reputation will only be enhanced by the contribution our representatives will make in this very difficult period in the coming weeks and months.I want to examine a couple of aspects of both the intentions and concerns that formed the basis for this bill. I was interested, in preparing for this contribution this afternoon, to look at a debate that occurred in, I think, 1995 in the other place in the first incarnation of this bill, the Defence Cooperation Control Bill. I think the contributions of the members who spoke that afternoon were very informative, as they have been today. Mr Gibson, the then member for Moreton, who proposed the bill, referred to Australia's reputation as:. . . good `international citizens' who have consistently pursued peace, freedom, democracy and the observance of human rights for the whole period of our nationhood.He correctly made reference at the time to the large number of Australian citizens who lost their lives in those very pursuits.I recognise the ethical concerns that led to the introduction of this bill, concerns that relate to the fact that Australia is and should continue to be a good international citizen, a view that Australia's international relations, and in this case specifically our defence relations, should be conducted on grounds which take into consideration the human rights or social impact of their agreements.In many ways it is really a debate about Australia's role in our region and, in fact, the world at large. The bill cites the need for Australia to consider the social effects of any defence agreement into which we enter—and, I assume, therefore, to not enter into some proposed agreements on the basis that some countries are not suitable. But I do not think it is possible to look at defence cooperation in isolation; it is, in fact, part of a much larger picture of Australia's role—of, in fact, any country's role—in international interaction. What about the social and cultural effects of not engaging in such cooperation? What about the equal and opposite reaction that equates with every action?It is very important to look at the broad picture, not the narrow, in this context. We do not operate in a vacuum. To paraphrase the words of John Donne, in fact we are not `an island' in this context. Other countries will take up any space that we vacate. I think it is much more important for Australia to be part of the process, rather than outside of it. In recognising the importance of the interplay of nations in this regard, in recognising the importance of human rights, it is about in fact pursuing a dialogue, not a monologue—not a single story consistently presented, but one which has communication through which we can change views, through which we can ameliorate inappropriate treatment.There is clearly a role for Australia to play in taking a leadership position in our region and more broadly across the world, but there is an appropriate mechanism through which to do that, and I do not think that this bill in its current form does that. In fact, having listened to some of the speeches this afternoon, it would almost be possible to assume that Australia does nothing else in international relations; that defence cooperation is apparently the only thing we are all about. Those who have spoken in favour of the bill have paid no heed or credit to other efforts that we are making in our relationships to address both social and human rights issues. I want to look briefly at some of those.In December 1997, Australia signed what has become known as the Ottawa Convention—one of over 120 countries to do so. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction was ratified by Australia earlier this year, in January, and comes into force on 1 July. Australia was a participant in the first meeting of states parties to the Ottawa convention held in Mozambique in May. My lower house colleague the Hon. Kathy Sullivan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, represented the government at this meeting.It is worthwhile noting that Mrs Sullivan was appointed as Australia's special representative on demining in March last year. Her brief is to play a key role in ensuring that Australia's demining efforts are coordinated to maximise their effect in the international field. She is also working to encourage the most effective global organisation of international donor resources to demining, victim assistance projects and landmine awareness education. This is a clear demonstration of our ongoing commitment and longstanding contribution to international efforts to help mine-affected countries.The Ottawa convention directs most of its assistance to Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan—areas where the effects of landmines are particularly severe. These efforts rely heavily on the expertise and technology of Australia in demining these regions. Australian personnel are involved in training people in most of the major landmine clearance projects around the world. In fact, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade web site notes that by 2005 the Australian government will have spent more than $100 million on demining and related programs. It is important to consider these sorts of programs in context, in the same discussion in which we consider a bill such as the one before us today—the Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill.In addition, Australia takes its role in providing foreign aid to nations in need very seriously. Again, that is part of the broad picture to which I have referred. Total official development assistance for 1999-2000 will be $1.5 billion, which is a $22 million increase over the 1998-99 budget. This comprises increased aid to East Asia and the Pacific to assist our aid partners in responding to the East Asian financial crisis and support their longer term development needs. That brings total assistance to East Asia and the Pacific to almost $890 million. The increase to East Asia includes doubling the Asia Crisis Fund to $12 million and increasing country program assistance to Indonesia by $6 million.The budget includes a package of assistance which is aimed at poverty alleviation and sustainable development at the grassroots level—including, again, increases for demining, the Human Rights Fund, micro-finance and assistance provided directly by Australian missions overseas.In relation to micro-finance, this is a very important aspect of the program for women in developing nations in particular, as they often benefit most from these programs. On a recent visit to Bangladesh, Wendy McCarthy and Imelda Roche, examining the operation of micro-finance, came back very convinced of its efficacy. The Sydney Peace Foundation gave its inaugural prize to Professor Muhammad Yunus from the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, who pioneered micro-credit in that regard, and has found it extra ordinarily helpful in assisting with the poverty levels of women in particular.On the health front, the budget provides for increased assistance for both polio and iodine deficiency eradication, in support of the global target for eradicating both by 2000. There is a seven per cent increase in funding for the core NGO program, bringing the total increase in the AusAID NGO Cooperation Program since the government was elected in 1996 to over 60 per cent.I want to refer briefly to some regional specifics of this aspect of the Commonwealth's commitment, because it is important to consider these in looking at the broad picture, when considering all the contributions that Australia makes in our region and more broadly. In regard to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific—my colleague Senator Sandy Macdonald referred extensively to his recent experiences in Papua New Guinea in relation to Bougainville—in 1999-2000, $264.8 million in country program assistance and $35.5 million in budget support will be provided to PNG, in line with our commitment in the treaty on development cooperation. That is the last year that Australia will provide direct budget support to Papua New Guinea. The majority of our aid is now provided as projects—and projects in the priority sectors of education and training, health and infrastructure.Our aid program to the Pacific will increase by about $2 million, the additional funds being directed towards the Solomon Islands, in particular recognition of and support for their economic reform program. In Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, the bilateral aid budget will be maintained in real terms, with assistance to the Palestinian Territories by way of an increase of $900,000. We also provide more assistance to these regions through NGOs and emergency and humanitarian programs.There have been previous debates on this bill in its other incarnation. It is important this afternoon to make reference to a number of those. When Mr Atkinson, the former member for Isaacs, addressed this issue, he made a point that I think we would all support about our commitment to the pursuit of human rights. He said:With human rights, I think it is important that we have dialogue. Dialogue is one of the greatest areas on which we can rely through which we can achieve a change in people's views. In fact, if there had been more dialogue in connection with Yugoslavia, maybe there would not be some of the difficulties in trying to reach peace solutions that there are today.It is more than ironic that he made those comments in October 1996, given the current situation gripping that part of the world. As he said—and I would endorse—dialogue is the key to achieving significant international gains in the pursuit of human rights.There are economic aspects of this debate which include the contribution that defence exports make to our overall economic strength. Most critically I would note that there are appropriate channels through which to pursue issues such as the protection of human rights with regard to world trade of arms and national defence. This particular piece of legislation does not in fact fall into that category. What this does is to provide for undue restrictions on Australia's trade dealings where often issues of speed and efficiency will be crucial. The process that is required by this bill ignores existing protocols and would hinder that speed and efficiency.The bill calls for the application of a process of certification to be applied to future and current dealings. In terms of the practical cooperation of this process, it could be said that you may as well make it retrospective for all the difficulty that its application in the current structure will cause. If it applies to this particular section of our international relations—defence—why wouldn't you apply it to all our other dealings, the sorts of things I mentioned this afternoon? Why wouldn't you apply it to agricultural goods or manufactured goods? The reality is that this would be hugely impractical and would significantly impair the capacity of our country to operate in an increasingly international world.I note that in section 7 in relation to change of circumstances the bill provides for a mechanism to withdraw a certificate if there is a change of circumstances in the nation with which an agreement or deal is made. It does not specify, for example, as far as I can see, what would happen to ongoing dealings or agreements. It does not specify what happens to the participants in that process if the circumstances change.In terms of how one actually proceeds down this road, I think it is more about having an approach to defence matters that is informed by information gathered by Foreign Affairs—a whole approach, a comprehensive approach—not with decisions made in isolation and not, as I said, with this sort of legislation to make it happen. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence in his comments this afternoon said that the prescription within this bill is too restrictive, that it is overprescriptive, unworkable and impractical. There are considerations to be made which are not able to be made in isolation of the consideration of this bill.The bill draws largely upon traditional criticisms from the Democrats and from non-government organisations of defence exports and the Defence Cooperation Program in particular. As I have said, it gives no real recognition to this government's or for that matter previous governments' commitments to advancing human rights, particularly in this region. It gives very little recognition to the policies and procedures that are already in place to ensure that defence exports and cooperation are consistent with both our national interests and human rights concerns. These are procedures which ensure that the export of military goods is assessed against relevant criteria which include the human rights situation in the countries of destination. This bill's proposal for public scrutiny of export applications is, as I have said, impractical and unworkable. It ignores the fact that in reality there is both oversight and public scrutiny of such programs.What are our objectives in regional engagement? Essentially they are to promote regional security and stability. They are to develop the capacity to work with regional countries to confront future security challenges, either diplomatically or militarily. The strictures that are proposed on Australia's Defence Cooperation Program here are inappropriate and I think in many ways would compromise the ability of responsible ministers to devise and implement the government's regional engagement policy. There is a number of ways in which parliamentary oversight of the sorts of activities that are referred to here already occur, whether we are talking about joint standing committees, Senate legislative committees, debate within the chamber or other matters. The bill's idea, one suspects, of creating a new international body to report on and evaluate transfers of arms sales is unlikely to attract wide international support.The Wassenar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms for Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, of which Australia is a founding member, is one of several multilateral organisations already in place to promote responsible export practices. In addition, the government provides data on an annual basis to the United Nations Conventional Arms Register, which encourages transparency in the movement of major armaments. In making these points I seek to talk again about the broad picture. It is not possible, in my view, to sensibly discuss defence cooperation in isolation. It is important to look at the broad picture both internationally and domestically.In terms of human rights policies—and several speakers have referred to that this afternoon—this nation has, as I have said before, a long tradition of supporting human rights in our position and globally. We as a government view human rights as an inseparable part of Australia's overall foreign policy approach both because the treatment of human beings is fundamentally a matter of concern to all Australians and because promoting and protecting human rights underpins Australia's broader security and economic interests.We have in fact a very simple starting point when it comes to the promotion of human rights. Whatever we do it should be effective. Occasionally, support for human rights will create difficulties in our bilateral relationships, but the best means of managing those difficulties is to focus on practical measures and to address human rights concerns in the context of a sound bilateral relationship. Essentially I think that amounts to cooperation—and cooperation on a range of fronts—rather than confrontation. Some of the examples I provided this afternoon would be within that range. Rather than recourse always to loud public criticism, we believe in offering practical assistance to countries that improve the human rights situation on the ground.In this region, the economic and accompanying social crises have focused attention on fundamental rights and freedoms and the necessity for effective democracy and good governance to focus their realisation. That focus is on advancing Australia's national interests by assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, which is consistent with a strong emphasis on human rights. The sort of aid and the sorts of projects I referred to before are part of that process. We have to be realistic about assessing what we can and cannot achieve in pursuing particular human rights issues.The white paper `In the National Interest' notes that the objective of human rights policy should be to make a difference, not just to posture, and I think that is where this bill fails to deliver. It seeks to add further layers of bureaucracy which have enormous potential to discourage exports and investment and risk damaging our policy of regional engagement instead of recognising the steps already taken and the achievements made under the approach currently pursued.In promoting human rights, the government's priority is that practical efforts will more likely directly improve human rights situations on the ground. They can include development cooperation programs. They can include assisting in the establishment of national human rights machinery. They can include encouraging bilateral, regional and multilateral discussion of human rights issues and working to both develop and strengthen the effectiveness of regional and international human rights institutions and instruments.I referred very briefly in my earlier remarks to the government's commitment to advancing human rights through the Human Rights Fund. That has been reinforced by a 30 per cent increase in funding in the current aid budget to expand our capacity as a nation to fund small community based human rights activities, and this was in fact in addition to a further increase in the budget of the previous year. This is a reinforcement of our commitment to take our aid program into the next century and, when considered with all the other steps we have taken, confirms that human rights considerations are integral to the assistance the government provides to countries in the Asia-Pacific region.17:46:005629Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The Defence Cooperation Control Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] was first introduced into the Senate by Senator Woodley in February 1997. Senator Woodley's stated purpose is to ensure that human rights considerations are given full and appropriate consideration in relation to Australia's defence exports and defence cooperation relationships, and this is a concern that is wholeheartedly shared by the Australian Labor Party.It was in January 1998 at our national conference where Labor moved to significantly increase the emphasis on human rights issues in our approach to international relations. This has been very clear in Labor's contributions to debates on policy towards East Timor, Indonesia, and countries like Burma. In this regard, the very effective contribution by our shadow foreign minister, Mr Brereton, should be acknowledged.In the course of reviewing our approach on these important issues, Labor's national conference specifically adopted a strengthened policy in respect of the relationship between defence exports, defence cooperation and human rights. With regard to defence exports, Labor supports the export of Australian defence equipment within strict guidelines.In saying this, I note as an aside that Australia is, by comparison, not a major exporter of defence equipment. But defence exports are important for the development of our defence industries which support the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force and our national security. In this context, it is interesting to note that, if the proposed criteria in Senator Woodley's bill were adopted with regard to imports of military hardware and technology, there would probably be a good argument for not importing from most countries of the world.Putting aside the military considerations, if such a policy were adopted, one such country where military hardware would be imported from is Sweden. I raise the example of Sweden because it is interesting. Per capita, Sweden is one of the major foreign aid donors in the world. It has an impeccable human rights record, and it has played an impeccable role in the United Nations and various world organisations. Yet Sweden, comparable in terms of its economic size to Australia, is one of the world's major arms exporters. In fact, it is a country with an active industry policy which includes arms manufacture and export. I raise this because it is not easy to balance economic military arms production and export with issues relating to human rights, and Sweden is an interesting example in this case.Labor does not support, and in government would not allow, defence exports to countries which have had an adverse impact on Australia's security interests, which have contravened United Nations embargoes or where there is a clear identifiable risk of the proposed export or violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms of their own citizens. Applied with appropriate rigour and transparency, this would be a good human rights benchmark to apply to our defence exports. Labor acknowledges the important role that defence cooperation—including joint exercises, training and personnel exchanges—plays in building regional security and greater understanding with and among the defence establishments of Australia's neighbours.As an aside, it was interesting to read in the Australian Defence Force Journal of 1998 an article by Commander Michelle Costantino of the Italian Navy, who wrote of the shrinking defence budgets around the world—and personally I do not think that is a bad thing—and growing commitments in the new `world order' which will force, in this case, Western navies into close cooperation, that multinational Navy integration is the way ahead. This is an inevitable trend in regional defence cooperation.At the same time, any defence cooperation arrangements must be designed to ensure national and regional security are enhanced and not used to assist the suppression or violation of human rights or fundamental freedom of the citizens of the countries with which we have such cooperative arrangements. Accordingly, it is essential that Australia closely monitor the human rights performances of these countries with whom we engage in defence cooperation.I would like to touch on Indonesia relatively briefly. In Australia, as we would all be well aware, there is a clear distinction between military and civilian authority, with ultimate power resting with the government. This is in sharp contrast with Indonesia where the armed forces are the central institution in politics, in administration and in many aspects of the economy. If we look at why that has occurred in the historical context, we need to understand that the military in Indonesia led the fight for independence against the Dutch. They fought a war of independence and they won that war.The end of the Suharto regime in May 1998 rightly unleashed a substantial debate about the role of the military in Indonesian society and a reduced role for the military. That approach is a consistent policy of the opposition parties, who, I am pleased to say, have a good chance of winning government when the elections are held in Indonesia.I would say to the Senate: does Australia have absolutely no impact on the future role of the military in Indonesian society—and, I would hope, a much diminished role—by simply saying, `We don't want to have any involvement. We want to withdraw totally from the desirable impact of a reduced role of the military in Indonesian society'? I would argue we should, as an ethical consideration, be very active in that debate with a certain level of cooperation with the Indonesian armed forces. I say that in the context of an individual who has a very strong and passionate concern about what has happened in respect of East Timor. I do not necessarily think the appalling record of the Indonesian armed forces in not just East Timor—although that is the most obvious example—but in other areas of Indonesia and the concern about that is incompatible with Australia's links and relationship with the Indonesian military.In this regard, Labor welcomed the suspension last October of joint exercises and cooperation between the Australian defence forces and the Indonesian special forces, known as Kopassus. Although the government avoided any direct mention of human rights issues, preferring to attribute the deferral of exercises to Indonesian economic considerations, I would certainly contend that, in light of the revelations of Kopassus's involvement in human rights abuse, including the disappearance of political dissidents in Indonesia and specifically in East Timor and Aceh, this was an appropriate policy response. Since October last year, Kopassus intelligence units have been widely identified as playing a key role in organising, arming and effectively controlling the pro-integrationist militias which have been responsible for the recent reign of terror in East Timor—and I am certainly sure that is not an overstatement—and appear intent on thwarting the conduct of a free and fair ballot on 8 August.Clearly, defence cooperation can bring important security benefits for Australia in terms of potentially influencing and enhancing our knowledge and understanding of regional military forces. But these relationships must always be kept under close scrutiny, especially in times of political turmoil and conflict such as is occurring in Indonesia today. There must be an ongoing process of review—something which is ultimately the responsibility of the relevant ministers and the government of the day—to ensure that our defence cooperation both enhances our security and is fully consistent with and supportive of the key human right principles Australia expects should be applied in our international relationships.In this regard, Senator Woodley's bill is clearly well intended, but it does pose real difficulties in that it would establish a black and white, rigid framework in which ministers and governments would be obliged to make public judgments on human rights situations in neighbouring countries with equally black and white implications for defence cooperation. I have heard it often said that lawyers have a great capacity to turn black into white or white into black, but international relations, and particularly our relations with countries like Indonesia, are not black and white.Labor considers that high standards should be applied with appropriate transparency. Often, however, policy making in these sensitive areas involves very complex judgments about the best and most effective means to advance both our national security interests and our human rights objectives. The framework proposed by Senator Woodley would pose considerable potential difficulties for sensitive bilateral relationships and our ability to advance our human rights objectives.Australia does have obligations under the law of armed conflict. Australia does have obligations under international human rights law and, unfortunately, this is not often acknowledged. The United Nations has affirmed on many occasions that international human rights law does apply. In undertaking and planning both exercises and operations, the Australian defence forces must bear in mind all aspects of international law. Australia, as a nation, has not been reluctant to formally bind itself to various international conventions in this regard. We became party to most of The Hague conventions in 1909. The four Geneva conventions were ratified by Australia in 1959, and the additional protocols were ratified in 1991. These are but a few examples that do serve to illustrate that Australia does have obligations and, unfortunately, these are not often recognised in the debate.I noticed that one of Senator Woodley's examples in his second reading speech on this legislation referred to the Pacific patrol boat project, and he made some criticisms of that. That particular project—which is the supply of patrol boats to a number of Pacific Islands—is very definitely in their interest, because these Pacific islands face a threat to their fishing resources. They have vast international waters to police. It is an extremely difficult task, and we have rapacious fishing fleets from countries such as Japan and Taiwan flouting international law and agreements. I would argue that this is a good example of very effective cooperation between Australia and the Pacific Island nations.Also of interest—and time does not allow me to go into it today—is the recent policy of the newly elected British Labour Party in this regard and the criteria it has put into effect based on its manifesto commitment that the British Labour Party `will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or internal aggression'. With its focus on the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Woodley's bill also fails to recognise the collective responsibility of ministers in relation to these issues.Documents563210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O'Brien)—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of general business orders of the day having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.563218:00:005632Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I found the Natural Heritage Trust Annual Report—Helping communities helping Australia to be very interesting reading. It contains a lot of material, a lot of detail about grants that have been given to various community organisations. On the face of it, you would have to say, `Well, this looks like a worthwhile initiative of the government.' But then I turned to page 101, `Program Performance Reports National'. This particular section deals with the Air Pollution in Major Cities Program. A statement on page 101 reads:The Natural Heritage Trust also addresses areas requiring a national focus for effective solutions rather than a local, regional, catchment or jurisdictional approach.So I thought: terrific, air pollution in major cities; this will make worthwhile reading. I found that the program's goal is to reduce the impact of air pollution on urban areas and, in doing so, contribute to the development of sustainable urban environments. There are a number of worthy objectives: national standards in relation to air quality, national strategies to assist the states and territories, im proved monitoring to better target management, air quality research to improve the basis for policy and decision making, and community education on air quality issues.Then there are sections on national standards, national strategies, research and community education. I even found reference to an `Inquiry into urban air pollution in Australia'. Under that heading it is stated:Air pollution is consistently identified by Australian Bureau of Statistics' surveys as the major public environmental concern.It goes on to state that an independent inquiry into urban air pollution in Australia has been conducted by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. That inquiry examined the causes, scale, trends, effects and costs of air pollution. It also made a series of recommendations which were released as long ago as November 1997 in a major report called Urban air pollution in Australia . The government's initial response was released last year in a booklet called Clear the air , and a number of projects have been announced with regard to transport, residential, monitoring, industry and coordination.What a sham! Here we have the Natural Heritage Trust, and we also have the Minister for the Environment trumpeting all these reforms, allegedly to air pollution while, at the same time, bunkered down over in the Prime Minister's office we have the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and, at times, the environment minister and the Democrats. And what is one of the two fundamental issues that are being discussed? The diesel fuel rebate. What is the point of all this window-dressing—and that is the best I can describe it as—when the government was originally prepared to give it all away in terms of the diesel fuel rebate?I would like to quote from a report by Margo Kingston in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed `Minister feels heat of diesel debate'. She writes:The government wants any truck above 3.5 tonnes to have access to the rebate bringing another 300,000 vehicles into the scheme.This is a government that would proudly release a report about its concern for air pollution, on the one hand—perhaps here in the chamber the minister would refer to this report—while over there, bunkered down, it still tries to manoeuvre its way to having greater impact on the environment and air pollution in wanting trucks of 3.5 tonne to have access to the rebate with an extra 300,000 vehicles consequently being brought into the scheme. So far the Democrats have flatly rejected softening their main demand that only trucks above 20 tonnes be able to claim the 25c a litre diesel rebate, and I certainly hope that they will hold firm to protecting the environment. (Time expired)18:05:005633Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Reynolds has gone to the heart of the issue in respect of which this report entitled Natural Heritage Trust Annual Report—Helping communities helping Australia has been produced. That is, what weight do you give economic development; what weight do you give to matters of the environment; what weight do you give to the need for people to earn a living; what weight do you give to catering for things other than economic issues, such as a great environment in which to live, a great road to drive along?In this context, I think of the Great Ocean Road in my home state of Victoria, one of the most magnificent scenes to be had anywhere in the world. How would you measure dealing with that so that its appearance is `changed'—I was going to use the word `desecrated' but I do not want to load this debate. How do you treat that in a way that preserves that great, almost spiritual experience you have in driving down that road? How do you measure that against the money that economic development would bring in?This question has been beautifully summed up by an article in the Age of 20 May 1999 by Martin Flanagan—who came from that great state of Tasmania, which you, Mr Acting Deputy President Murphy, and Senator Calvert present in the chamber also come from. This article is about the disappearance of the Tasmanian tiger. As you would know, the last of the Tasmanian tigers was taken in the mid 1930s. A cousin of mine, John Cooney, who adorns—I use that word advisedly—the north-west part of Tasmania, saw it being taken out and brought into Waratah. It was later shown around various shows in Tasmania and finally put into the zoo. It was the last of this animal. Earlier, in the 19th century, a bounty had been put on the head of the Thylacinus, the Tasmanian tiger, and then suddenly we were without it. In his article in the Age Martin Flanagan was saying that science might be able to bring the Tasmanian tiger back now. Both you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and Senator Calvert would have heard about this attempt to bring back the Tasmanian tiger through science. He says that he does not know whether it is going to come back or not. The article goes on:What I do know is that when people meet a creature that is alien and strange and give it fearful names that enables them to strike it from their consciousness, what they find, with the passage of time, is what the sailor who shot the albatross in Coleridge's poem, The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, found. They have killed off a part of themselves that they will henceforth seek in endless and fantastic ways.That is the big question we will have to answer in the environment debate that is about to come up: how much of ourselves do we destroy in not looking after the land that has been given to us through our inheritance? That is the issue that this report raises. Let us hope it makes a reasonable contribution to the future.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! The time for this debate has expired.Committees56335633The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Chapman) to take note of report agreed to.New Tax System—Select Committee—Report—Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements Bills; Luxury Car Tax Bills and Wine Equalisation Tax Bills. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Cook) to take note of report agreed to. Community Affairs References Committee—Report entitled: Public dental services—Government response. Motion of Senator O'Brien to take note of report agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6.11 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills5634r636Billsr635Billsr637Billsr633Billsr6345634TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS) BILL 1998Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 and amendments (1) to (4) and (6) to (36) on sheet ER229 and (1) and (2) on sheet on ER227. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.19:33:005634Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 1258:(1) Clause 13, page 10 (line 26), after "reference to", insert: : (aa) the availability of a service capable of providing a data transmission speed of 64 kilobits per second to end-users as part of the designated basic ISDN or equivalent service or comparable satellite service at a price determined by the Telecommunications Review Committee under section 92C;The effect of this amendment is to mandate the availability of the 64 KBS digital data capability or equivalent, as part of the USO, at a price to be determined by the Telecommunications Review Committee which we will establish in our amendment No. 2. As I said earlier in this debate, we believe that it is the availability of 64 KBS which is necessary for all Australians, or an equivalent satellite service, and that it is not enough for that just to be provided. We need to make sure that it is affordable, and the purpose of setting up a Telecommunications Review Committee would be to determine what is reasonable in terms of that affordability. As I said earlier, it can cost around $700 for access to that service, which is largely unaffordable to the remaining Australians who do not currently have access.19:35:005634Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I had intended, when speaking to the first amendment, to lay out a few general comments on how the opposition is going to be approaching this bill, in particular, but all of the five bills we are discussing tonight. At the outset, the opposition wishes to state in clear and unequivocal terms that we continue to maintain our position of opposition to the partial or full privatisation of Telstra and, as a consequence, will oppose, as we have indicated, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 .We put on the record that we oppose this bill because it seeks to achieve outcomes not in the interest of Australian taxpayers. Those outcomes, as we all know, are the sale of 16 per cent of Telstra forthwith and the sale of the outstanding 51 per cent of Telstra in a most shoddy and bogus manner. This aspect, in particular, Labor finds remarkable. If it were not so serious, it could be described as a farce that the government could seek to dispose of a $50 billion asset without further parliamentary scrutiny. This package authorises the sale of the final 51 per cent of Telstra worth something between $50 billion and $60 billion, dependent on the price of shares on the market. Witnesses to the recent Senate inquiry—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bishop, I do not like to stop you in full flight, but we do have before us the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 and the Democrats' amendment, so if you could relate your comments to those.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Yes, I was coming to that. I wanted to lay out a few general and broad comments as to how the opposition was going to handle it, and that will take some time. But that is what I intend to do.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—If you can indicate how you can lead it to that bill it would be helpful.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Just mention the amendment every 15 seconds.UI4Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Thank you. As I was saying, witnesses to the recent Senate inquiry into this package of bills almost universally condemned the model proposed by the government for an inquiry into the service levels of Telstra. As you are aware, Madam Chair, this bill does address in its form the service levels of Telstra. Witnesses variously condemned the limited time frame of six months, the proposal for the inquiry to be conducted in secret, the fact that the public would not be asked to make submissions, the refusal of the government to release any terms of reference for an inquiry prior to Senate consideration, the fact that the eventual terms of reference would be set by regulation and not legislation—despite repeated government denials—and the limited nature of the inquiry in that it only addresses Telstra service levels and not the adequacy or sufficiency of competition within the Telecom market.If the disposal of $50 to $60 billion of taxpayers' money without any parliamentary scrutiny at all is a disgraceful political act, equally bad are the priorities of the government in the eyes of the opposition. Minister Alston has made repeated references to the social bonus involved in the sale of Telstra. The minister has not been so keen to discuss the obscene amount of transaction fees proposed to be allocated to brokers and bankers. The social bonus can accurately be characterised as relatively modest. The Bills Digest and documents circulated by the government break up the social bonus as follows: an additional $250 million to the Natural Heritage Trust; $70 million over five years to be expended from the rural transactions centres reserve for modern communications services in rural areas; $150 million over three years to be expended from untimed local calls access reserve to allow or improve untimed local calls access; an additional $81 million for regional communication needs over five years; and $120 million over five years to be expended from the TV fund reserved for improved ABC or SBS reception. This is a total of $671 million over five years for a series of at best relatively modest TV, telephony and communications services. Put another way, an average $134 million over five years is the social bonus to be paid to 18 million Australians. Put plainly, the social bonus is an average of $7.40 per year for five years for every Australian.This can be compared with the fees to be paid by the Commonwealth for the sale of shares. The ALP minority report explains these fees disbursements in some detail. At page 60, para 2, it says:The Department of Finance and Administration gave evidence to this inquiry that the current value of the Commonwealth's remaining shares in Telstra is $55.4 billion. According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , fees for the sale of these shares are expected to amount to between 1.5 and 2 per cent of sale proceeds. On this basis, the Government will pay bankers and lawyers between $800 million and $1.1 billion for the sale.So while the bankers and lawyers collect in excess of $1 billion, the people of rural and regional Australia stand to reap just $671 million in compensation for the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra.Assume there are 1,000, which is exceptionally high, persons involved in the sale of the remainder of Telstra. Lawyers, accountants, financial advisers, brokers, agents and consultants will receive an average fee between $800,000 and $1.1 million. This is properly characterised as obscene greed and virtual theft. It is simply outrageous.So we have two sets of rules. Firstly, specific amounts are allocated to be spent over a five-year period for modest improvements in select Telecom services. We should note carefully that percentage figures are not allocated. Specific amounts only are allocated. Secondly, when it comes to fees for bankers and lawyers, the fees are set at between 1.5 and two per cent of sale proceeds.When the bill was tabled in the House last November, the share price of Telstra was around $6. It is now somewhere between $7.50 and $8. Every time the share price goes up, bankers, lawyers and brokers cream off hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money for private gain. There is no extra work, there are no additional requirements, no extra staff are hired and no extra computing or support staff are required. It is simply a transfer of heroic proportions to a select group of professionals because there is no cap on fees or no fixed fee. Any percentage based on the aggregate sale proceeds of a booming telco in a booming stock market is simply greed and waste. Each Australian who funded the growth of Telstra receives in compensation a lousy $7.40 a year for five years. On this point, page 60 of the opposition senators' report continues:Opposition Senators condemn the Government for its pitiful attempt at bribery. The residents of rural and regional Australia, far from feeling placated by additional funding, should feel outraged that their telecommunication needs are worth less than the services supplied by the myriad of bankers and lawyers fortunate enough to be aboard the Telstra sale gravy train.Turning now to Labor's rationale for continuing opposition to Telstra privatisation—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Are you going to relate this in some way to the amendment?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Yes, I am coming to the amendment before the chair, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you. I am being very patient.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—It basically boils down to the reasons spelt out in the ALP minority report, and they do address the amendment that is before the chair. Those reasons are, firstly, the service levels in less profitable areas of Australia. That is the exact point that is being addressed by Senator Allison's amendment. Secondly, remittances or dividends to government—again a point addressed by Senator Allison's amendment. Offshore remittances and maintenance of Australia's telecommunications infrastructure are also comprehended by Senator Allison's amendment. Finally, there is investment by Telstra in research and development and loss of jobs.Addressing each of these points in turn, it is clear that, since the sale of the first one-third of Telstra, service levels in the less profitable areas of Australia have declined. By keeping Telstra in public hands the federal government will retain the right to direct Telstra to ensure that adequate service levels and access to up-to-date technology are delivered to all Australians, particularly in rural, remote and regional Australia. You could not ask for a point more on the thrust of the amendment that is going to be discussed by Senator Allison for the Democrats in a few moments.Secondly, the money that Telstra generates each year and pays to the government directly benefits taxpayers. As the level of government ownership in Telstra decreases, so does the dividend to government at the end of each financial year. By keeping Telstra in public hands, the federal government will continue to receive these funds, funds which will grow and grow each year into the future. Thirdly, 35 per cent of the profits of a fully privatised Telstra will go offshore. Fourthly, investment in, and maintenance of, Australia's national telecommunications infrastructure will decline as more of Telstra is sold.Australia's telecommunications infrastructure is too crucial an element of the economic, industrial and social framework of the nation to allow any further dilution of government control and ownership. Fifthly, the level of investments by Telstra in research and development for the public good has already begun to decline. Instead of selling Telstra, the government should be ensuring that Telstra continues to invest time, resources and expertise in the innovations and technical infrastructure necessary to take Australian industry into the new millennium.Finally, privatisation gives rise to an environment where the emphasis is on reducing staff and staffing costs. This means fewer workers and degraded workplace conditions for those lucky enough to keep their jobs. Telstra has shed nearly 25 per cent of its total work force in less than two years, with further job cuts scheduled for both the current and subsequent financial years. As more and more of Telstra is sold, the pressures on the Telstra board to make decisions based solely on economic and logistical imperatives will increase. Profit for shareholders will become the primary and, eventually, under a fully privatised Telstra, only concern.Bitter experience since the sale of the first third has shown that as more and more of Telstra is sold service levels will decline, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Investment in research and development for the national good will cease. Levels of foreign ownership will increase with more of Telstra's profits going overseas. More jobs will be lost in regional Australia. Investment in maintenance of the telecommunications infrastructure in rural and regional areas will decrease. Any notion that Telstra has a social and not just a legislative obligation to provide services to the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the isolated in the Australian community will vanish completely.As chapter 3 of the ALP minority report identifies, it is clear that the current pro-competitive regulatory framework regime for telecommunications is still in its infancy. However, it is possible to identify failings in the regime's operations. Witnesses to the Senate hearings—industry participants, consumer and community organisations—repeatedly asserted that there was not as yet a fully operative competitive environment in telecommunications in Australia. (Time expired)19:48:005637Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—There are just a couple of other things I want to add to my remarks earlier about this amendment. As we know, earlier this evening the government amendment giving all Australians digital data capability, in theory, was agreed to—anyone will be able to call Telstra and say that they want an ISDN line connected to their house or their business. But the issue here is that well over 90 per cent of Australians have been able to obtain ISDN for a number of years but very few have taken up that technology. Some estimates have suggest ed that only 65 ISDN lines have been connected to residential premises. It is fairly obvious to the Democrats that the reason for this is the prohibitive cost. So I again ask the question: what is the point in having this capability available to all Australians when it is priced out of their reach?It is arguable that ISDN is of much greater significance to those people in rural and regional areas than it is to those in the cities. The reason is that standard telephone lines in the cities are capable of quite high speed data transfer. Most city dwellers can connect a modem to their standard telephone line, dial their Internet service provider and transmit and receive information at quite high speed. Consequently, they do not have any real need for ISDN technology. But it is quite a different story in rural and remote communities. Their telephone lines quite often are not capable of carrying data at high speeds and so access to the Internet is prohibitively slow. And, of course, the slower it is the more expensive it is for those people using it.It is those people in rural and remote areas who can potentially benefit the most from access to an ISDN line. But with the government proposing to simply allow Telstra to charge standard commercial rates for ISDN, those people will simply not be able to afford the service. Many of those people would have had ISDN available for quite some time but would not have been able to afford it. The government's amendments will simply mean nothing to those people. Those people want the government to make ISDN available at an affordable price.To use an analogy here, it is like the government approving the use of a drug to combat an illness. If that drug is simply not affordable and the government will not take action to reduce the price of the drug, the approval of the drug for use becomes completely pointless. So, too, the availability of ISDN to Australians is pointless if they cannot afford to subscribe to the service.Our amendment has two parts to it. The first part is to make ISDN available to all Australians. It achieves the same result as the government's amendment that we have just agreed to. But the second part is very signifi cant. It refers to the supply of the capability at a price to be determined by the Telecommunications Review Committee. That new committee must determine what is an affordable price for access to ISDN. In doing so, the committee will be able to invite public submissions and call witnesses to give evidence at a public hearing or hearings—there may be the need for more than one. Then the price will be reviewed by the committee at least every two years.We know that ISDN has the potential to provide enormous benefits to people in rural and remote Australia, and the Australian Democrats would like to see those people being able to access those benefits. The minister commented during the debate on the previous amendment that ISDN is a premium service. That may be the case, but it should not be priced as a premium service. It should be available for those people who are very keen to have it but at this stage simply cannot afford the purchase price.19:53:005638Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Can I just indicate that the reason why the government believes that this Democrats' amendment should not be supported under any circumstances is that, for a start, the Senate has just put in place a new digital data USO regime. So this would, in effect, put a second one on top of it—but not one that would be consistent with the embedded approach. The actual wording of the Democrats' amendment talks about `the designated basic ISDN'. That is not a defined term. Telstra offers a basic rate ISDN, but there is a number of basic ISDN products. So there would be confusion from the outset about what precisely was meant. It certainly does not indicate that an asymmetric rather than a symmetric service is required—in other words, if you are to have the same bit speed both ways it is much more expensive than to simply have it dial up and then have 64 kilobits down.The whole concept of the USO is a minimum standard of service. If you are going to allow people as a matter of automatic entitlement to have a high-speed uplink, you are effectively treating them as small businesses and giving them a regime that is designed entirely for households and residential consumers. So it is vague in that respect. There is nothing here to require the ISDN comparable service to be made available as widely as possible—unlike our amendments, which have to be available to at least 96 per cent of the population. So, once again, it would fail the test of universality. There is no provision in the proposed amendment to enable the implementation of the government's commitment to establish a scheme subsidising the cost of the customer equipment. That is a critical issue of affordability. As Senator Allison rightly indicates, most of these services are price sensitive.But it is also very important to remember what I did say earlier on, and that is that ISDN has already been made a declared service by the ACCC, which means that for the first time other carriers will be able to obtain a commercially negotiated price—or, if necessary, an arbitrated ACCC price. That will then be able to be passed on to retail customers. That is what has been missing to date. You have not had the competition in the marketplace. Telstra has, therefore, treated it as a premium product, irrespective of the underlying cost to Telstra. It having been made a declared service, the cost will, one would assume, come down very significantly. That will provide the opportunity for real competition in the marketplace. By adopting the funding methodology used for the rest of the USO, the Democrats' amendment would enable carriers who either are now supplying such services commercially or have indicated that they intend to do so in the future to claim losses from the rest of the industry that they should bear themselves.Finally, this amendment proceeds on the basis of price controls, which are in every other area not only an anathema but in some respects unconstitutional, because the Commonwealth does not have the power to fix prices—as those of us who have been the around long enough to remember referendums on the subject in Mr Whitlam's time can attest. So it does have a whole raft of very serious problems. Democrats' amendment No. 2 sets the composition and structure of the review committee that would be established and charged with simply setting an affordable price, which would presumably have no regard to the interests of other than consumers—in other words, if you have enough consumers saying, `We want this on a giveaway basis,' that amendment would effectively require that to be the case. `Affordable' is as long as your arm. There has got to be some element of commerciality, and the USO normally provides a subsidy to the extent that uncommerciality is required. So, for whole range of reasons, can I say that—the government amendment having been passed by the Senate—it would be quite incongruous and highly confusing, apart from not really even achieving the aims claimed for it, if this bunch of amendments were to succeed.19:58:005639Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise in support of the Democrats' amendment. For all the minister has said, in reality what he has not really looked after is that other four per cent of Australians for whom there was still, presumably, a commitment made by the government at the last election to provide a 64 kilobit service. Having been at various hearings in relation to the previous sale of Telstra effort, this was shoved down the necks of anybody who complained about their concerns about not getting a decent service—that that was the government's promise, and didn't they know it. So the government has put forward their amendment—and, of course, we have dealt with that—to require that service be made available in accordance with that commitment. What the government did not do was make that technology affordable. The minister, in fact, has argued the same thing about the Democrats' amendment. But this actually requires that the price is to be determined by the Telecommunications Review Committee which is to be established if we agree to Democrats' amendment No. 2. The minister cannot have it both ways, and we are prepared to support this as a move in the right direction.19:59:005639Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—If I could just ask the minister a couple of questions arising out of his comments. I read from what he says that he acknowledges that cost is a problem, in that he looks forward to a time when competition will deliver lower prices for ISDN services. I wonder if he can give us a time frame as to when he expects those prices to come down, just so we can judge whether what we have here is just a promise some time in the future or whether it is a realistic likelihood. I also ask—and this may be a bit of crystal ball gazing—about the degree to which he would expect competition to reduce what appears to be an average cost of $700 per consumer.20:00:005639Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—My apologies—I had not appreciated that Senator Allison was asking a further question. That is the case, is it?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—I think there were two questions, Minister.20:01:005639Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I will start again. I think, Minister, you are acknowledging that there is at present a problem with affordability and you say that extra competition will go some way to solving that problem. I wonder if you could give the chamber a time frame in which you think this will happen and some estimation of how low that cost will go. The chamber can then make some judgment about whether we are really talking here about affordability or about some sort of long-range plan which may or may not emerge to give relief to remote and rural clients of telecommunications.20:01:005639Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I apologise for being distracted a moment ago. There should be competition in the marketplace to provide the incentives for price reductions, and there has not been that to date. The next best option is for carriers to interconnect with Telstra's ISDN system; in other words, ideally they would roll out their own. They would be offering a competing, stand-alone ISDN product. They have not done that because they have not got the networks to do it, particularly in non-metropolitan Australia. So the next best thing is to get access to Telstra's ISDN network.Until something is a declared service, you simply ask Telstra and they can say no or they can charge you an arm and a leg, and you are left lamenting. But under the new competition regime—part XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act—you are entitled to approach a carrier, seek to negotiate on fair and reasonable terms and get an `affordable' price, in your terminology. If you do not get that or you are not satisfied, you then apply to the ACCC and the ACCC declares it as a service, which means you can then, in the absence of commercial agreement, have the matter arbitrated. So for the first time the ACCC will be able to set a wholesale price for interconnect access to Telstra's network in terms of ISDN availability. That means other carriers will be able to offer competing ISDN products on a much lower cost base than if they simply had to take whatever price Telstra gave them. So that is a very significant step forward.I am not sure that anyone has yet sought to have the matter arbitrated. But there is nothing particularly surprising about that: the threshold issue is to make it a declared service; once it is, then everyone knows that unless you do a deal you will find yourself in arbitration. So I think it is inevitable that there will be, either by agreement or by determination of the ACCC, a much more affordable and attractive wholesale rate which will then enable real competition to occur in the marketplace.What might that be? In some respects ISDN is an interim technology—64 kilobits is not bad these days but you can probably do a lot better. If you have direct satellite downlinks, you may not need ISDN on the fixed line anymore. As you are probably aware, Telstra and other carriers around the world are investigating what is called a suite of DSL technologies, which enable you to use the existing copper pairs. That may well prove to be much more cost effective than ISDN, which is, I suppose, in some part why we only mandated capability rather than availability. So all I can say to you is all the signs are propitious. One way or another there is going to be increasing demand and there is going to be an increasing number of suppliers wanting to meet that demand. Telstra has bottleneck capacity in a number of areas. We have, I think, a world leading regime to tackle that and therefore I would expect that ISDN or equivalent services are going to be widely available and affordable in the not too distant future.20:05:005640Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I have a couple of questions for the minister arising out of the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. I would indicate at the outset that the opposition will be opposing the Democrat amendment. Minister, the questions I have go to cost. We are talking about four per cent of Australia—predominantly rural and regional Australia, outlying areas—that will receive the new service. Can you give us any idea of what the figures are for the 50 per cent subsidy that you are offering? Who will it apply to? Will it apply to only consumers or will it apply to both consumers and business? What parts of Australia will it cover?20:06:005640Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If you are asking me what proportion of the geographic area of the continent, I am not sure but 96 per cent of the population is a pretty fair start. I think the estimate is about $1,200 for the transmission facilities, the access card and the antenna receiving dish. So you would be getting $600 worth of subsidy and you are getting access to a whole range of new services, so that is likely to be a fairly attractive proposition and therefore affordable for many of Senator Boswell's best friends.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—All two of them!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Probably two is a quorum at a National Party branch meeting. Given that we have picked up the other four per cent, at the end of the day you will have 100 per cent coverage. I do not remember offhand the area covered by that four per cent. It is about 100,000 individuals—37,000 households. We cannot give you the geographic area, but we can say that the rules for ISDN capability have been if you live within five kilometres of a local exchange. The proportion of the population who live more than five kilometres from the local exchange, from my recollection, is something like 37,000 households—about 100,000 people.20:08:005641Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—What is the total cost involved in the government subsidy, Minister? I understand the figure of $1,200, but what is the total cost involved?20:08:005641Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I suppose the maximum would be 37,000 by $600. That is assuming 100 per cent take up, which is unrealistic. The numbers I was quoting refer to the outer extended zones. Four per cent of the population is about 720,000. It is about 2.3 persons per household. So you are looking at 300,000 to 350,000 households. Multiply that by $600 if you were to achieve 100 per cent take up, which you wouldn't.20:09:005641Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I thank the minister for that advice. I should put on the record a few comments about the extension of the USO to include provision of digital data at the 64 kilobits level or equivalent on demand. It is at this early stage very worth while to repeat a bit of history about this issue because it is of interest, but it is also a bit of a fraud being perpetrated by the government. The government is proposing to implement the election commitment it went to the people with in October 1998. The government is also hoping that no-one will remember its 1996 election commitment. When it made the 1996 election commitment, it promised all Australians that the 64 kilobits would apply across the entire continent without exception and to all units in Australia. There were to be no exceptions.In those days we were in government and we had advised the then opposition that their promise to the Australian people was simply not possible to be achieved. It was possible then, because we knew it could be provided on a cost-effective basis, to provide it to 95 or 96 per cent of the Australian population. We so advised the opposition of the day that, once you went past that critical figure of 95 or 96 per cent into the outlying areas, to the far reaches of our continent, then the cost would blow out of all proportion. It would blow out to the figure of around $2 billion. The then opposition said, `The ALP is lying. They have been reluctant to do it. They wouldn't spend the necessary sums on rural and regional Australia.' They simply refused to acknowledge the veracity of what we had advised them.On the third or fourth day after the government came into office the heads of all departments came to see Senator Alston. One of the issues that Senator Alston wanted to discuss with them was how the new government was going to honour its election commitment. Mr Shaw said to Senator Alston, `Minister, there's a problem.' Senator Alston said, `What's that, Mr Shaw?'YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Were you in the room?2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—I was not in the room, but I have heard it. He said, `There's a problem, Senator.' Senator Alston said, `What's the problem, Mr Shaw?' He said, `If you want to go past 95 or 96 per cent penetration rate, it is going to cost you $1.8 billion.' Senator Alston said, `What are you talking about, man? What are you talking about? We've promised to deliver this service to all Australians. We've been out of government for 13 years. We're the new breed. We come in and speak the truth. You just go and get that 100 per cent and don't worry about the $1.8 billion.' Mr Shaw was an intelligent and respected public servant. He knew the minister had to know the truth, so he pressed again. He said, `But, Minister, with respect, the figure really is $1.8 billion. What you were advised by the previous government was not a pack of lies; that was the truth. It might have been a little bit rough on the edges. We didn't do the final figures. It might have been $50 million here or $75 million there, but in all those private meetings you had—none of them were on the record—what the then government said was correct.' Senator Alston said, `My goodness. What are we going to do?'They adjourned for a while and Senator Alston had some consultations with his colleagues and he explained to them what Mr Shaw said. Most of the boys knew Mr Shaw. They had been watching him in estimates hearings for years. They had made an assess ment of his worth, of his credibility, of his character. They had come to the view that he might have had some dealings with those rats in the ALP but he was not a bad sort of bloke. He basically spoke the truth. Senator Alston had to advise all the boys, and probably some of the girls too these days, that it was going to cost $1.8 billion.Mr Costello, the Treasurer, heard about that. Mr Howard heard about it. They said, `Senator Alston, you had better come and talk to us.' They said, `What did we go to the election with? What was our plan? Truth and truth in government. Truth in delivery. What was the second most important point? No wastage of public funds. No wastage of taxpayers' money. Senator Alston, you can't spend $1.8 billion building a few phone lines in the bush. That's not on. You'd better go away and have an inquiry. We've heard about that Mr Shaw. He's not a bad bloke either. We've watched him in estimates. We've heard reports. We've had a few boys in the ranks and they've been telling us a few things over the years. He's not a bad public servant. So you just send off that Mr Shaw and have an inquiry.'So Mr Shaw was called into Senator Alston's office. Senator Alston said, `Here's the deal, mate. This is what I want you to do. I am not allowed to spend the $1.8 billion. Mr Howard and Mr Costello are the leaders, and we had a couple of promises. We're going to be a truthful and honest government. We're going to deliver, but we can't spend that $1.8 billion. But why don't you go off and have an inquiry, make it a private inquiry—not a lot of people are real interested in this area—get some submissions in and see what they've got to say.' So they went off and had this inquiry.Mr Shaw did not have to do a lot of work, to be truthful. He said, `Yes, Minister, I'll do that,' and raced out of the room. He opened up his laptop, pressed a few buttons and, heavens above, there was the figure. It was still $1.8 billion! So he pumped it out, dressed it up in a nice package, had a few copies printed off and said to the minister, `We can't do it.' The minister thought about that for a while. He now had formal advice from all organs of the department. It was not possible to do it. He had authority, the imprimatur, of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—they were not about to waste the money. He had some private talks with the Nats. They are not silly people. They understand the value of the $1.8 billion. They understood it could be spent elsewhere. There were going to be a few give-aways. The boys were back in town after 13 years. There were a few things to be given away and they could spend it elsewhere.This took a while to work through the system. There were a lot of meetings. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were busy. They really did not want to be bothered that much with all these issues, but they knew they did not want to spend the $1.8 billion. So, come the 1998 election, Senator Alston is still the minister for communications, they still have not delivered on their 1996 election promises, but they know it is going to be close.They were going to people with a hard item. They had to sell a 10 per cent tax to everyone. No-one wants to pay a 10 per cent tax. They knew that a few of the members who came in in the previous election were going to lose. They had to be sacrificed—20, 25, 30 of those new members. Some of them had the potential to have long and successful careers in politics, a few of them might have made the front bench, but the decision was made and they were going to go to the people on the GST. There would be casualties, but they had to have a sound communications policy, and that was Senator Alston's job. He had to fix the problem.They knew they could not repeat what they had said in 1996. They could not repeat that, so they thought up a new proposition. Their policy was they agreed to an extension of the USO because it conformed with previous principles. Their solution was to get the four per cent equivalent data service. Wonderful word `equivalent'. It changes the whole ball game. We go from total, universal, accessible coverage in the four corners of our land—the whole continent was to be covered in 1996. Well, we are going to cop the 96 per cent coverage. It isn't bad—no-one really argues with that. On the opposition side, we do not say 96 per cent is a bad effort—but we still had to cover the other four per cent. So what they did was they went with the equivalent data service. They said they would pay half the cost of installation and equipment, and the expected cost was between $1,200 and $1,800.But the real problem we have is that the 64 kilobit ISDN equivalent is only one way via the satellite. It does not work both ways. So, when you ring up, want to send a fax or want to transmit some data, you dial the number, it zaps up the satellite and zaps down again in record time—no problems at all. But when you want to receive, when you want to get a lot of information in, you are still locked into the old landline system. At best, after three years, the government was able to deliver a half service via the satellite system.All those people in small businesses in rural townships, five kilometres outside the exchange, have been given a halfway house. All they are going to get is the upload but not the download. So the government has half delivered. It has gone back on its 1996 promise. It has not delivered in 1998. It has a 96 per cent coverage. It has the satellite up there, downloading at a good rate, but it does not have it uploading.So, if you are a consumer, if you are a business, if you want to relocate out of the big cities, if you want to go bush, if you want to go up into the Kimberley, if you want to go into the Northern Territory, if you want to go into the far north of Queensland, if you want to take your family, some capital and open up a small business in one of these wonderful towns in the country areas, you can do that. You thought you might be able to do your business from your new home, from the new country town, but your problem is and remains with the service to be put into place by the government—you only have a halfway house of a system. You can upload but not download. You can send information quickly, you can respond quickly, but, when people want to contact you, when they want to send you documents or a lot of information, when they want to send you reams of information, you are at the same disadvantage that you have been at for the last 100 years. It cannot be received quickly.The government are spending between $1,200 and $1,800 per consumer, and that is probably going to apply to something in the order of 300,000 or 400,000 outlets. That is a good beginning; it is a fine development. What the opposition is critical of is that it is a come down; it is a fall back on the 1996 election promise. What happened in October 1998 is that all of the promises that the government had been elected on in 1996 that had not been delivered all of a sudden became not only non-core promises but non-promises. They were finished; they were gone. The government revisited the policy books and developed a whole heap of new promises, and this promise that they are implementing here tonight is a second-rate promise. It provides an excellent service one way to consumers in the bush. But in reverse, the back way, when you want to send material back, you have the same old slow, inefficient system.That is really not good enough. The amendment by the Democrats, unfortunately, if successful, would mandate the service both ways. But the cost is out of all proportion; it is just too high. The cost is $1.8 billion. That figure of $1.8 billion is what we said to the government it was prior to the 1996 election. It is what Mr Shaw advised the previous ALP government; it is what Mr Shaw advised the current government. There is no secret about it. It is simply at this stage, no matter how desirable, not cost effective to implement that system. The damage that is being done is to the fabric of trust that is built up in the community, because the government went to the people and promised a particular outcome. (Time expired)Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—We now move to opposition amendments 1 to 20 on sheet 1247. Senator Bishop, will you be seeking leave to move them together?2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—I will be.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a problem with them all being moved together, but I do not know when the right time would be to mention which particular ones I have problems with.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Margetts, we can split the questions at the end of the debate.20:26:005644Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments 1 to 20:(1) Clause 9, page 9 (lines 25 to 27), omit all the words from and including "to the greatest extent" to the end of paragraph (d), substitute "in so far as it is in the public interest to do so".(2) Clause 71, page 50 (after line 12), after paragraph (1)(b), insert: (ba) specified information or documents about how a person has worked out a claim made under section 54; or(3) Clause 71, page 50 (line 15), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; or (d) specified information or documents about how a person has proposed the declaration of net cost areas pursuant to a notice under section 49 or 51.(4) Clause 71, page 50 (lines 24 to 26), omit all words from and including "can" to the end of subparagraph (ii), substitute "would, in the opinion of the ACA, be contrary to the public interest".(5) Clause 72, page 51 (lines 2 to 7), omit subclause (1).(6) Clause 72, page 51 (line 8), omit "An eligible person", substitute "a person".(7) Clause 72, page 51 (line 11), omit "eligible".(8) Clause 72, page 51 (lines 14 and 15), omit "an eligible person", substitute "a person".(9) Clause 72, page 51 (line 15), omit " eligible ".(10) Clause 72, page 51 (line 17), omit "eligible".(11) Clause 72, page 51 (lines 19 to 21), omit paragraph (4)(b), substitute: (b) the making available of which to the first person would, in the opinion of the ACA, be contrary to the public interest;(12) Clause 72, page 51 (lines 23 to 25), omit "eligible" (wherever occurring).(13) Clause 72, page 51 (line 26), omit "or (b)", substitute ", (b) or (ba)". (14) Clause 72, page 51 (line 27), omit "eligible". (15) Clause 72, page 51 (line 30), at the end of subparagraph (i), add "or another person worked out a claim under section 54".(16) Clause 72, page 51 (line 31) to page 52 (line 5), omit subparagraph (d)(ii), substitute: (ii) having regard to the policy principles in section 9, the first person's interest in being able to examine that basis and those methods outweighs any public interest in the information not being disclosed; or(17) Clause 72, page 52 (line 6), after "71(1)(c)", insert "or (d)".(18) Clause 72, page 52 (line 7), omit "eligible".(19) Clause 72, page 52 (line 10), at the end of subparagraph (i), add "or another person proposed the declaration under section 49 or 51".(20) Clause 72, page 52 (lines 12 to 16), omit subparagraph (ii), substitute: (ii) having regard to the policy principles in section 9, the first person's interest in being able to examine that decision outweighs any public interest in the information not being disclosed.I want to place amendments 1 to 20 in the general framework of the opposition's position. The bill is about the customer service guarantee, the USO service standards. They are principles which the ALP hold dearly, and they go close to the issues of universality, affordability and accessibility of Telco services. Until recently, and even now, the telephone service was basically a phone in the home, the public phone and, more recently, the odd fax machine. It is now clear that there are an array of potential services all driven by digital technology—for example, Internet connections and data feed—and people, naturally enough, are interested in access to those. So at the minimum, the ALP believes in those three principles—universality, affordability and accessibility. They are reflected in our national platform.These three principles cut to the heart of ALP amendments 1 to 20 and go to two key factors. The first is that access to information re the USO be released by the ACA in the public interest, and that is a change from the heavy onus of commercial-in-confidence to public interest. The second is that we seek that information be available and be released by the ACA at the beginning of the process and not at the conclusion. So there are two clear principles that drive these amendments: firstly, that access to information re the USO be released by the ACA in the public interest and not as commercial-in-confidence—and, as I said, that is a change from the heavy onus—and, secondly, that information be available and be released by the ACA at the beginning of the process and not at the conclusion of the process.I think people who have observed developments in the various Senate inquiries and public hearings over the last six months well understand that the cost of the USO—including whether that information should be released—has been a very topical issue under discussion. Indeed, over the two or three days of Senate inquiry into the Telstra privatisation bills, that and competitive tendering for USO provision in regional areas emerged as the two key issues under discussion. A range of interested industry groups, consumer associations and competitors of Telstra came along to that inquiry. They made the point that, every time there is an inquiry, or there needs to be access to information, or there needs to be an exchange of information, Telstra draws the line in the sand. In nearly every matter of consequence, Telstra says that important documents are commercial-in-confidence.In an organisation that has cashflows of up to $50 billion or $60 billion a year, it is fair comment that many contracts would be commercial-in-confidence and Telstra should not have to release—and we would not seek the release of—the detail of a lot of those agreements to competitors. But it gets to the stage where, every time a consumer issue arises, Telstra appears able to price gouge in the market to deny the operation of effective competitive forces, and alternate carriers, competitors, have no other process by which to complain but to go through lengthy complaint procedures to the ACA.As soon as such procedures are initiated, Telstra have developed the habit of taking points of law to the Federal Court and activating various appeal mechanisms. As a consequence, what was intended to be a relatively quick process to ensure competition, and allow reduction in price for product to consumers via competition, is getting mired in a Telstra-devised strategy of always saying, `The information you want is commercial-in-confidence; we would like to give it to you, but we cannot.' As a consequence, lawyers are getting rich, the court system is doing well, but effective competition in the consumer and business market is not being achieved.The opposition listened closely to the submissions of a number of the relevant companies, industry groups and consumer associations which came to speak to us privately. They made the same comments in private that they had made in the public forum, and we came to the view that it was no longer appropriate for Telstra to have the legal right to say, `Everything is commercial-in-confidence.' It has reached the stage where we have had deregulation for almost two years and there has not been sufficient change in the method of the system. People—and by `people' I mean Telstra and its competitor carriers—are still locked into the old-fashioned way of thinking via the regulatory and legal framework. The people who are losing are consumers and business users of Telecom services. We came to the view that a test of a much lower standard had to be applied, and that test was `in the public interest'. So the amendment goes to that.The second point relates more particularly to the costings of the USO. We are all aware that, for many years now, the USO was agreed by the various carriers to be in the order of $230 million, indexed to CPI for the last three or four years, and the figure that we put through in a bill yesterday was in the order of $253 million.But, lo and behold, earlier this year Telstra decided to release the equivalent of a nuclear bomb: it released documents to the effect that the figure for USO provision in country Australia was not the $253 million; it was $1.8 billion. Because of that figure, Telstra sought to receive from competitor carriers their share of the cost of delivery of the USO—in the order of seven times.We are of the view that, having learnt from that process with the costing of the $1.8 billion, it probably would have been better if it had been out in the open from the beginning—not just a document tipped out by Telstra and provided to the ACA and, because the ACA had it then under review, not available to its competitors to comment on. On that basis, we are of the view that it would be much better if that material, that information, were released at the beginning of the USO process. So the thrust of these two amendments goes to those two issues.20:34:005646Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—These amendments, as Senator Bishop has indicated, do two things. Firstly, they extend the range of people who may have access to information related to calculating the universal service obligation cost. The Greens are supportive of amendments Nos 5 to 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19. We believe that it is useful for all the public to have access to this information. We will be supporting this aspect of the ALP's amendments. As we have certain concerns with the other amendments in this block, we will be asking for these amendments to be moved separately.The second aspect of the amendments changed the balance in judging whether there is a reasonable claim to assessing information held by the Australian Communications Authority. We, the Greens, have put our concerns about how companies can abuse commercial-in-confidence claims to obfuscate transparency and accountability, especially in situations of outsourcing of government services and where public moneys are involved. We have argued this on numerous occasions. As Telstra is still majority publicly owned, these issues are very relevant.Certainly, major issues have been raised by other carriers about Telstra's unwillingness to divulge information. During the casualties of Telstra, or CoTs, cases similar claims relating to Telstra's reticence have been made—and those cases related to information about people's telephone bills and those kinds of things. The CoTs cases provided further evidence that Telstra is prepared to use delay tactics to increase the expense for other people, and it has used legal professional privilege to prevent access to documentation when there was no real reason for doing so.So, while the Greens are supportive in principle of the ALP's attempts with these amendments, we do have some concerns. There are a number of situations in which there is a balancing issue between various parties' rights to access information or to keep it private and personal. For instance, balancing considerations enshrine into legislation what information can be publicly accessed, accessed in certain circumstances, accessed by certain people, or not accessed at all. Examples are freedom of information legislation or legal professional privilege.In this instance, when thinking of some of the circumstances surrounding Telstra's reticence to divulge information, strong provisions, such as those suggested in the ALP's amendments, may seem quite reasonable. However, the ALP's amendments were available to us—and I realise we are all rushed in these instances—only on Tuesday and we have not been able to do enough research into how they will affect various parties and what the scope of the public interest might be.Consequently, I would like to ask the opposition a few clarifying questions. A number of amendments change the conditions under which the Australian Communications Authority must or must not give out information or documents. Reference to the phrase `information causing substantial damage to the USO provider' has been deleted and replaced with `in the ACA's opinion, it would be contrary to public interest'. First of all I would like to ask: what are the parameters of the term `public interest' here?20:38:005646Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Whilst Senator Bishop is talking to advisers and taking some advice—I say welcome to the shadow minister—it may be appropriate for him to know what our feelings are on the opposition's amendments so that perhaps he can answer both the Democrats and the WA Greens at the same time. In certain circumstances eligible persons can request the ACA to provide information to them about the universal service cost claim. The ACA is empowered to provide that information but must decide that making the information available cannot reasonably be expected to cause substantial damage to the other person's commercial or other interest.Amendments Nos 1, 4, 11, 16 and 20 propose to change the test from `reasonable expectation of causing damage' to `whether the disclosure is contrary to the public interest'. Senator Bishop, you might like to note that we do not—subject to any further remarks you might make—propose to support those amendments. Amendments Nos 5 to 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19 allow any person to request the information rather than just eligible persons who are essentially telecommunications carriers. The Democrats do propose to support those amendments.Amendments Nos 2, 3, 13 and 17 allow any person to obtain information about how the universal service cost claim has been calculated. The Democrats do propose to support those amendments. Amendment No. 15, we regret we do not understand. If you can tell us about it, we may end up being able to go with you; we may not. Senator Margetts has already made the point—which everyone here is labouring under—that these amendments which are quite difficult have only recently been circulated, and no-one is at fault for that. That has made it a little difficult for us, particularly when we are dealing with issues like changing the disclosure tests from `substantial damage to commercial interest' to `contrary to public interest'. I will enlarge on those amendments we have objections to. We are concerned about the ramification of removing the specific test of `substantial damage to commercial interest' and moving to `contrary to public interest'. Clearly, the former of these tests involves a consideration of the specific interests of the carrier concerned and a decision as to whether disclosure of the information will be detrimental to that carrier. We are a little uncertain as to how a decision will be made as to whether the disclosure of certain information is contrary to the public interest, when what we are really concerned about is avoiding harm to the carrier that originally provided the information to the ACA.We cannot see any circumstances in which disclosure could be said to be contrary to the public interest when the information will almost invariably relate to only one organisation. To try to use an analogy, would it be contrary to the public interest to disclose the current balance of my bank account? It just does not make much sense. I ask Senator Bishop if he could give me an example of the type of information the carrier could supply to the ACA, the disclosure of which could be found to be contrary to the public interest. We cannot envisage a circumstance in which that could happen. The public interest test is commonly used in the context of freedom of information applications. For example, internal working documents of government do not have to be disclosed under the FOI act if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. We all have at least a reasonable idea of the sorts of considerations that might be involved in making that sort of decision, and we can all think of at least one or two examples of internal government documents that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose. But the application to test information which relates to a private company is conceptually difficult. With regard to those amendments we are supporting, amendments Nos 5 to 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19, we like the fact that those amendments broaden the range of persons who can seek access to USO cost information lodged by carriers with the ACA and we support the amendments for that reason. We can see no legitimate reason for restricting access to this information to the carriers. In general terms, it is all telecommunications consumers who pay the cost of the USO through increased charges levied by the carriers. To that extent, all telecommunications users should be able to access USO cost information. Amendments Nos 2, 3, 13 and 17, which we also support, allow any member of the public to obtain information about how the universal service provider has calculated its universal cost claim and the basis on which a carrier has proposed the declaration of a net cost area. For the same reason as we support the disclosure of USO information to the public, we support those amendments. So I am left with amendment No. 15 which perhaps you can explain to us.20:43:005648Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The simple response to the points that Senator Murray and Senator Margetts raised is this: arising out of the inquiries, we became aware and concerned that Telstra was having a total regard to its own commercial interests—there was no balance, no independent assessment and no input from any other carrier or interested party. We were of the view, because of the material supplied to that inquiry, that Telstra was not doing that in an objective manner but was almost using it as a first port of call. `Commercial-in-confidence' became a standard response to any request for information.Many of the requests for information were obviously a try-on—trying to access legitimate commercial secrets that should not have been disclosed—but we came to the view that Telstra was going beyond the bounds of proper behaviour, and commercial-in-confidence had become almost a first port of call.The reason we go to the public interest is that we want to have a non-partisan body being able to look at these sorts of claims and to make a decision—an arbitration, if you like. It would do that in the public interest. It would do that necessarily, looking at the interests of Telstra, looking at the interests of other carriers and, perhaps most importantly, looking at the interests of home consumers and business consumers. We want there to be that degree of transparency, independence and impartial assessment. We believe the lessons of the last two years have shown that relying on the simple proposition of the major corporation that something is commercial-in-confidence is not adequate.Having said that, we do not believe that the ACA, as part of that process of having regard to the public interest, should participate in or countenance in any way degradation of the national USO provider—limit its options or impose unreasonable or unfair commercial obligations on Telstra. Those are my com ments in respect of the difference between commercial-in-confidence and the USO.In respect of amendment No. 15, essentially the public interest test would examine the relative costs and benefits of the disclosure or otherwise of the information in question. Damage to the USO provider, when determining the public interest as significant damage, would be contrary to the public interest. So the essential thrust of the amendment in total is to allow for scrutiny of the methodology and figures used by the universal service provider to come to a particular figure for the USO costs.As a universal service provider is unable to put forward a USO figure for the purpose of recovering a proportion of those costs, it is reasonable to expect that the methodology and the figures be released for scrutiny. So that, Senator Murray, is the answer to your broad question. In respect of amendment No. 15, USO calculations by other persons that are forwarded to the ACA—for example a potential future regional universal service provider—can also be subject to such scrutiny.20:47:005648Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am not much the wiser in relation to that interpretation of amendment No. 15. Is Senator Bishop arguing that damage to the universal service provider is defined as contrary to the public interest? I guess anybody in the universal service provider would say that anything that damages them is contrary to the public interest, but is that the argument?I asked the question earlier about the parameters of the term `public interest'. Perhaps I will clarify that further. Has the opposition had any legal advice as to how these words would be interpreted? Would commercial-in-confidence form part of public interest? If not, when would it be possible for the Australian Communication Authority to decide that something was not in the public interest? If not, what are the other elements? If so, should individual commercial interests relate meaningfully to any reasonable concept of the public interest, and what other elements should be included?We are wondering whether it would be more useful to give the ACA the power to decide whether to give access to information, based on certain considerations. For instance, considerations could be public interest, whether substantial damage will be caused to the USO provider, and the benefit to the person requesting the information—that is, separating them and not lumping them all together.20:49:005649Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Whether commercial-in-confidence would be part of the public interest would be one of the matters we would expect the ACA to have regard to. Under the old regime, commercial-in-confidence was something that was simply assessed by Telstra in denying access. If we go to the new regime `in the public interest', commercial-in-confidence would be one of many factors we would expect the ACA to have regard to.In terms of the USO, the thing that drives this is that it is a public obligation; it is taxpayers' funds that are being used to provide the service. We do not regard it as unreasonable, if a figure allegedly quantifies the delivery of those services, that it be out there in the public domain, that it be open to scrutiny and that interested parties can agree with it, disagree with it or criticise it.With respect to degradation of the carrier, if the carrier in a competitive market should lose market share or whatever through open competition, that is entirely the market operating and we would have no comment on that. We would not expect the ACA, though, in assessing requests in the public interest, to regard it as part of its charter to deliver benefits to competitors, for the sake of delivering benefits, that degrade or harm the national carrier in a way that is not achieved by open and fair competition.20:51:005649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank Senator Bishop for the clarification so far. The reason I asked him, first of all, about whether they have had the opportunity to seek legal advice is: what is the basis of their expectation that commercial-in-confidence would be automatically considered to be part of the public interest test? Where is the advice coming from? I am not saying I want you to table your legal advice, but we are keen to find out how you expect that commercial-in-confidence would automatically be part of the public interest test.20:52:005649Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Senator Margetts, I apologise for not answering that last question. The opposition has not taken formal legal advice on that point. We came to the view that the public interest test should replace the commercial-in-confidence test on the basis that, for almost the last two years now, the commercial-in-confidence regime had been an almost manifest failure. Telstra was essentially hiding behind it. We thought that that was not achieving the purposes of the act in terms of effective competition. That is why we wanted the ACA to have regard to the public interest. One of the matters that we think Telstra would have regard to in assessing the public interest would be matters identified by Telstra as commercial-in-confidence.20:53:005649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I certainly agree with Senator Bishop that there is a problem. What consultation has been undertaken to work out that this is the answer to the problem? When I was suggesting that we thought it might be more useful to give the ACA the power to balance off `public interest' against `damage and benefits to the person requesting information', we were saying that it should be looking at those balances. Obviously, people giving evidence to the inquiry were saying that public interest ought to be the basis of the test. However, where is the push coming from for this solution? Is it soundly based?20:53:005649Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—In the public hearings and in discussions we had with them thereafter, a range of the competitor carriers to Telstra put a number of points to us. Firstly, they said that they do not believe that the figure of $1.8 billion put out in the public domain by Telstra was accurate. They say that the figure is a gross and deliberate exaggeration. Secondly, they said, `When we went to the ACA to try to look at the methodology used by Telstra to cost that figure of $1.8 billion, access was denied by the ACA on the basis that it had been provided to the ACA by Telstra on a commercial-in-confidence basis.' It almost became a round robin: you could not chal lenge the veracity of the figure because it was commercial-in-confidence, and it was commercial-in-confidence because Telstra said it was.We are talking about taxpayers' funds. Telstra is still a corporation which is two-thirds owned by the Commonwealth and mandated by parliament to provide particular services to all Australians. Also, where the alternative carriers provided those services to certain parts of Australia they had to pay their share of the USO to Telstra on the basis of market share. On this basis, the carriers suggested that it was quite irregular—at best—for them to receive a bill in the mail for tens of millions of dollars and have to sign off on a cheque without being able to establish the methodology. The suggestion of public interest came from a range of industry carriers which are competitors to Telstra. They said, `Put it out in the public domain. Let it be assessed by the ACA. Let us look at it before it comes to a conclusion. We can have our economists and finance people examine it and then put our comments to the ACA before the ACA comes to a conclusion.20:56:005650Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am now a little clearer as to what we are dealing with here. I have absolutely no doubt that Senator Bishop is right. I would be very surprised if the commercial carriers did not want to remove all commercial-in-confidence considerations from Telstra, but I am also absolutely sure that they would not be putting their hands up to remove all the commercial-in-confidence considerations from themselves, even though it is a public service as well.My concern is that, whilst it might theoretically be what they want, it would not necessarily be the provision that they would like to see all elements of government involved in. I am not in any way, shape, or form arguing from the point of view of protecting corporations. You have heard me arguing on many occasions here that the way commercial-in-confidence is used to hide legitimate public information is outrageous. There are very narrow bands of areas where it is legitimate for commercial-in-confidence to be used to restrict information.I am worried that we may have moved to a position which is untenable, in effect, for a telco like Telstra, in as much as there is not then this balance between `public interest' and `damage and benefits to the community'. Whilst I understand the thrust of your amendments, I am not sure that we may not be assuming more than it is actually possible to assume by way of public interest. We might inadvertently inflict a damage if we were to support those particular elements of your amendments.20:58:005650Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I think the answer to the concern you raise, Senator Margetts, is that you have to find an answer that balances the competing considerations. The first position of all the carriers was not a public interest test. Their first position—and their second and third positions—was to say, `Telstra is a public corporation. It is using market power to lock out new competitors. Both the opposition and the current government have mandated a deregulatory regime. They seek to achieve lower prices via competition. We are being prevented from engaging in effective competition by the government's own agency, Telstra. There should be no restrictions. Documents that are put out that impose a cost on us for partial delivery of the USO should be out in the public domain. Everyone should have access to them. We should be able to have that without any restrictions.' That was their first, second and third position. Only when we said to them, `Listen, that is unreasonable. Telstra does have legitimate commercial-in-confidence matters that it needs to consider,' did we resolve around a test of `in the public interest'.`In the public interest' may not be perfect but we are of the view that it is better than the current regime; that it allows some independent or impartial assessment; that it allows figures amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to be at least challenged and subject to accounting and financial assessment. Many administrative/judicial entities act in the public interest. There is no doubt in my mind that the Federal Court or the High Court over time have litigated the meaning of `public interest' and there is a clear meaning out there in the law reports. A number of tribunals I have worked before over the years have had as part of their charter to act in the public interest. In our view, the test of public interest allows independent assessment by the government body, having regard to a range of considerations, one of which is commercial-in-confidence but not the sole consideration. We regard that in a competitive market as a significant improvement—albeit not perfect—on the current regime.21:00:005651Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Perhaps I could just indicate the government's point of view. We understand the concerns of the opposition and others and also the sense of frustration expressed on a fairly regular basis by would-be monopolists or new entrants into the marketplace who espouse the virtues of competition at that stage of the cycle. But one of our concerns really is that this is likely to go too far, because we do have a regime we are proposing that would impose fairly strict limitations on the ACA's capacity to release information. In particular, it would not be able to make available information under this section, the making available of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial damage.Once you take out something like that and then you replace it with amendment (16) which effectively says that the ACA must release material even where the interests of a particular carrier outweigh the public interest, then you have gone from a position of trying to avoid substantial damage to a particular party to saying, `Well, we really don't care. As long as one carrier feels it is in its interests, the ACA has no choice but to release that information even though it judges that it is not in the public interest.' So the public interest becomes a fairly important test. I know it is used liberally and frequently and then simply left up to the courts, but this would be an open invitation to ensure endless litigation—the very sort of thing that Senator Bishop quite rightly decries. If there are too many incentives in legislation for those with deep pockets to resort to litigation, then they will do it on a regular basis. And to insert something as broad as the public interest as the determinant of access would be, I think, an irresistible temptation to all concerned.We do have a very extensive review of the USO funding arrangements coming up later this year. I would urge the Senate that that is really the most appropriate time to consider these matters, particularly, for example, when one hears the contributions of Senator Margetts and Senator Murray. It is very dangerous to try and do these things on the run. We all understand that we are not wanting to overly favour any one party. If anything, I suppose the sympathies lie with new entrants, but you also have to be sure that you are not trampling on people's rights. And the best way to ensure you are not just responding in an ad hoc manner is to have all of these ideas and particularly these proposed amendments carefully considered in the course of a review process.So I would urge the Senate to say that it is not appropriate at this stage to proceed to introduce an entirely different approach which may well lead to substantial damage to carriers' interests and in fact, despite that, require the ACA to release that information. That is not a good way to go. I think there may well be improvements that can be devised which would meet the concerns that I think all of us have. But I do not believe that this approach is likely to advance the cause. If anything, if it is tested in the early stages and you find that the ACA is required to act against the public interest, which is what amendment (16) says, then I think you will find that everyone will be very critical of that system. So I think we should try and get it right by all means. I think there is probably room for improvement but not on the run.21:05:005651Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was wondering if I might make a helpful suggestion, and I have another question for Senator Bishop at the same time. I was wondering if Senator Bishop could give us an example of the kind of issue that might be held back under just a broad public interest parameter that simply says, `In ACA's opinion it would be contrary to the public inter est.' Could Senator Bishop give us some idea of what kind of information may be held back under that broad category.My helpful suggestion—at least I think it is helpful—is that perhaps we can vote on those areas where there is greater clarity from the point of view of the majority of the Senate. Those are the areas where there is simply an expansion of those who have access to information. I also think there is an indication that amendments (2), (3), (13) and (17) are supportable. The areas which have been indicated by both the Greens (WA) and the Democrats as being supportable with more work—as in some tick-tacking on behalf of the various parties—are Nos (1), (4), (11), (16) and (20). I think the government may never agree to those amendments and the minister would like to throw the whole lot out, but I am suggesting that we vote on those where there is a greater clarity and agreement. Those where there might be possibility of support are (1), (4), (11)—and I include (15) as there is still some lack of clarity there—(16) and (20). I am suggesting that we might defer consideration of those until we have a chance to get together and work out an acceptable compromise wording.21:07:005652Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Could Senator Mark Bishop provide some clarification on his amendment No. 15. We are not altogether sure about the intent of this amendment or whether technically it works. Could we have an explanation?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—I think Senator Murray asked that question and Senator Bishop did give an explanation. He may want to do it again.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I am advised that we are no clearer as to the object of the amendment.21:08:005652Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I am advised that the object of the amendment is that the act provide for both a national universal service carrier and regional universal service carriers should they be allocated the task. We would seek the obligations to be imposed upon both of those.21:08:005652Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Could I ask the minister's opinion on what would be achieved by that amendment?21:08:005652Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If the question was whether these rules would apply not only to the existing universal service carrier, being Telstra, but also to any other new regional carriers which might be designated as having responsibility in other regions, then the answer would be yes, we think it would have that effect. But there were a number of other reasons why I indicated that we did not think it was a desirable approach in principle to say that you can override the public interest where one party believes that it is necessary and if you do take that view that you have no choice but to do it. That is the effect of amendment 16.21:09:005652Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Yes, that is the effect and the intention, that both the national USO provider and any regional USO provider be subject to the same scrutiny. It is not our intent that, simply because you are a regional USO provider and you obtain the work, you would be exempt from the scrutiny that would be applied to the national USO provider. Our intent is that both be subject to the same degree of scrutiny.21:10:005652Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The minister mentioned amendment No. 16. I was talking about No. 15. I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue.21:10:005652Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think we are in agreement about the effect of these amendments in terms of applying to all those that have universal service carriage responsibilities. I was simply indicating that amendment No. 16 contains a fairly flagrant example of what we say is a good reason for hesitation before allowing the public interest to be overridden.21:10:005652Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I was talking about amendment No. 15, Senator Allison. I have not responded to the issues raised by Senator Margetts. I understood the question to be a specific example. I have been talking in generalities. I suppose a specific example would be if a party sought to have access to a large degree of the detail in a commercial contract as opposed to the bottom line.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will divide the block of opposition amendments, which are 1 to 20, into two blocks. The first block will be amendments 2 and 3, 5 to 10, 12 to 14 and 17 to 19. That leaves out 1, 4, 11, 15, 16 and 20.21:12:005653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I will just ask advice from the opposition as to whether they would be prepared to defer consideration of amendments 1, 4, 11, 15, 16 and 20 to give us greater ability to tick-tack on those in relation to the wording.21:12:005653Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—In response to Senator Margetts, the government has indicated opposition and it has indicated consideration of a review in the future. We are not going to die in a ditch on these matters. We will stay where we are.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—In response to a question from Senator Margetts, the opposition have indicated they are not going to defer amendments 1, 4, 11, 15, 16 and 20. I will put two questions. The question is that amendments 2 and 3, 5 to 10, 12 to 14 and 17 to 19 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendments 1, 4, 11, 15, 16 and 20 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to government amendments 5 and 39 on sheet 229.21:15:005653Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There are some matters arising from the next two sets of amendments that I think Senator Allison may wish to see stood down for a period, but otherwise I am in a position to move government amendments Nos 5 and 39 now.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—You are seeking leave for them to be moved together?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes, I am.Leave granted.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I move government amendments Nos 5 and 39 on sheet ER229:(5) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 1), after: . Telstra is subject to price control arrangements. insert: telephone sex services; simplified outline](39) Page 110 (after line 25), after Part 9, insert:Part 9A—Telephone sex services158A Simplified outline The following is a simplified outline of this Part. . This Part prohibits unacceptable conduct by telephone sex service providers, and carriage service providers, in relation to telephone sex services. . Conduct is unacceptable if the customer: (a) has not agreed in writing to the supply of telephone sex services; and (b) has not been issued with a Personal Identification Number or some other means of limiting access by other persons to the telephone sex service. . If a carriage service provider engages in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service, charges for the service must not be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the customer concerned. . The supply of other goods and services must not be tied to the supply of a telephone sex service. . The regulations may prohibit or regulate the supply, advertising or promotion of a specified telephone sex service.158B Unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (1) A telephone sex service provider or a carriage service provider must not engage in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (within the meaning of subsection (2)). Note: Telephone sex service provider is defined by section 158K. (2) For the purposes of this Part, if: (a) a telephone sex service provider uses a standard telephone service to supply a telephone sex service to an end-user in Australia; and (b) the supply is by way of a voice call; and (c) a person (the relevant customer ) is a customer of a carriage service provider in relation to the voice call; and (d) a charge for the supply of the telephone sex service is expected to be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the relevant customer; the telephone sex service provider and the carriage service provider are taken to have engaged in unacceptable conduct in relation to the telephone sex service unless: (e) the relevant customer has agreed in writing to the use of the standard telephone service to supply telephone sex services in general; and (f) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) the relevant customer has been issued with a Personal Identification Number that provides a means of limiting access by other persons to telephone sex services supplied using the standard telephone service; or (ii) the relevant customer has been provided with some other means of limiting access by other persons to telephone sex services supplied using the standard telephone service; and (g) the telephone sex service provider has reason to believe that: (i) if subparagraph (f)(i) applies—the end-user of the telephone sex service has used the Personal Identification Number referred to in that subparagraph to access the telephone sex service; or (ii) if subparagraph (f)(ii) applies—the end-user of the telephone sex service has used the other means referred to in that subparagraph to access the telephone sex service; and (h) the voice call is made to a number with an approved prefix. Note 1: Telephone sex service is defined by section 158J. Note 2: Approved prefix is defined by section 158H. (3) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.Charge for supply of telephone sex service not to be included in bill (4) If a carriage service provider engages in unacceptable conduct in relation to a telephone sex service (within the meaning of subsection (2)), a charge for the supply of the telephone sex service must not be included in a bill sent by or on behalf of the carriage service provider to the relevant customer. (5) Subsection (4) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (4) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.Agreements (6) An agreement referred to in paragraph (2)(e) has no effect for the purposes of this section if it deals with a matter other than the use of a standard telephone service to supply telephone sex services.Defence (7) In any proceedings against a carriage service provider under Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 that arise out of this section and relate to a telephone sex service supplied using a standard telephone service supplied by the carriage service provider, it is a defence if the carriage service provider establishes: (a) that it did not know; and (b) that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained; that the standard telephone service was, or was to be, used by a telephone sex service provider to supply the telephone sex service. (8) For the purposes of subsection (7), in determining whether a carriage service provider could, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained whether a standard telephone service supplied by the carriage service provider was, or was to be, used by a telephone sex service provider to supply a telephone sex service, the following matters are to be taken into account: (a) whether any inquiries were made of persons who proposed to use standard telephone services to supply commercial services by way of voice calls; (b) whether persons who use standard telephone services to supply commercial services by way of voice calls are under any contractual obligation to notify the carriage service provider of the nature of those commercial services; (c) whether the carriage service provider monitors, or arranges for the monitoring, of advertisements that are: (i) for commercial services supplied by way of voice calls made using standard telephone services; and (ii) published in mass-circulation newspapers or mass-circulation magazines circulated in Australia; (d) any other relevant matters.158C Supply of goods or services not to be tied to the supply of telephone sex services (1) A person (the first person ) must not: (a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services; or (b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services at a particular price; or (c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods or services by the first person; on condition that the person to whom the first person supplies or offers or proposes to supply the goods or services will agree to the supply of one or more telephone sex services. (2) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act. (3) An expression used in this section and in section 47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that section.158D Regulations may prohibit or regulate certain telephone sex services (1) The regulations may prohibit or regulate any or all of the following: (a) the supply of a specified telephone sex service; (b) the taking of specified calls to a specified telephone sex service; (c) the use of a standard telephone service to supply a specified telephone sex service; (d) the use of a standard telephone service to carry specified calls to a specified telephone sex service; (e) the advertising of a specified telephone sex service; (f) the promotion of a specified telephone sex service. Note: A telephone sex service or call may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the ACA or the Australian Broadcasting Authority a power to make a decision of an administrative character.Compliance (3) The following provisions have effect: (a) a telephone sex service provider or a carriage service provider must not contravene regulations in force for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c) or (d); (b) a person must not contravene regulations in force for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e) or (f). (4) Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.158E Aiding, abetting etc. (1) A person must not: (a) aid, abet, counsel or procure a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (b) induce, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (c) be in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3); or (d) conspire with others to effect a contravention of subsection 158B(1) or (4), 158C(1) or 158D(3). (2) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision . Note: Part 31 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides for pecuniary penalties for breaches of civil penalty provisions. Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of that Act.158F Evidentiary certificate—telephone sex service (1) The Australian Broadcasting Authority may issue a written certificate stating that a specified service is, or was, a telephone sex service. (2) In any proceedings under the Telecommunications Act 1997 that relate to this Part, a certificate under subsection (1) is prima facie evidence of the matters in the certificate. (3) A document purporting to be a certificate under subsection (1) must, unless the contrary is established, be taken to be a certificate and to have been properly given.158G Onus of proof—agreement and limiting access In any proceedings against a person under the Telecommunications Act 1997 that relate to this Part, it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that paragraphs 158B(2)(e), (f) and (g) are not applicable.158H Approved prefix (1) For the purposes of this Part, each of the following is an approved prefix : (a) 1901 or, if there is in force a written determination made by the Minister or the ACA specifying another prefix for the purposes of this paragraph, that other prefix; (b) if there is in force a written determination made by the Minister or the ACA specifying a prefix for the purposes of this paragraph—that prefix. (2) A determination under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .158J Telephone sex service (1) For the purposes of this Part, a telephone sex service is a commercial service supplied using a standard telephone service, where: (a) the supply is by way of a voice call made using the standard telephone service; and (b) having regard to: (i) the way in which the service is advertised or promoted; and (ii) the content of the service; it would be concluded that a majority of persons who call the service are likely to do so with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification from the call. (2) However, a service is not a telephone sex service if it is a therapeutic or counselling service provided by a person registered or licensed as a medical practitioner, or as a psychologist, under a law of a State or Territory.158K Telephone sex service provider For the purposes of this Part, if a person uses, or proposes to use, a standard telephone service to supply one or more telephone sex services, the person is a telephone sex service provider .158L Voice call (1) To avoid doubt, a reference in this Part to a voice call includes a reference to a call that involves a recorded or synthetic voice. (2) In determining the meaning of a provision of the Telecommunications Act 1997 , or a provision of this Act other than this Part, subsection (1) is to be disregarded.158M Savings of other laws This Part is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory.158N Transitional (1) This Part does not apply to a telephone sex service that is supplied before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of commencement of this section. (2) However, an agreement referred to in paragraph 158B(2)(e) may be entered into before, at or after the commencement of this section.These amendments insert a new part 9A in the bill dealing with telephone sex services. The new part is intended to address community concerns that telephone sex lines are too easily accessed by children. Part 9A prohibits the supply of telephone sex services where the telephone company bills the customer for the service, except where the telephone customer has given prior written agreement to telephone sex services being accessed using their telephone service. A personal identification number is used to limit access and the service is supplied using the separate 1901 number range.This new part also provides for the making of regulations in relation to the supply of telephone sex services. It is intended that the regulations will deal with telephone sex services supplied from overseas and the 0011 sex lines and will also be able to deal with the content and placement of sex line advertisements in the print and electronic media. These arrangements should prevent most children from accessing these services. The arrangements do not have the purpose of closing down the telephone sex industry or preventing adults from using these services. The sex services will still be able to be supplied where telephone customers have opted in or where the customer pays for the service by another means, for example using a credit card.I indicate that there is an opposition amendment that would seek to allow electronic communication of advice rather than written. We take the view that it is very important that the carrier is in no doubt as to who has authorised the service. We think it is consistent with the written requirement that you be able to communicate that advice by fax, but we do not believe emails have sufficient built-in verification arrangements to ensure that degree of security. Therefore, we will be opposing that amendment.21:18:005657Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I want to make a few comments about this issue. At the outset, the opposition supports the provision of opt-in services. When it comes to a vote, we will not be supporting the alternative model circulated by the Australian Democrats which simply is an opt-out model.The government, as Senator Allison outlined, does have its own particular model. We are not entirely comfortable with that model. We do think it is a little too narrow or restrictive in this modern age, and so we will be pressing ahead with our amendments. We believe that in this day and age communication is expanding at such huge rates and communication by electronic medium is becoming much more commonplace and normal. Indeed, even in the commercial world—in the banking world and in the finance world—a lot of business communication is done by electronic medium and done via email. A large number of major corporations which have a range of wholesalers and manufacturers who supply to them now do all of their business by e-commerce or email. In the final analysis, access to phone services is a relationship of a commercial nature. Accordingly, whilst the written contract is fine and the minister has indicated he thinks that it extends to correspondence by fax, we believe it should be extended to communication by email.I indicate for the record that the opposition is in favour of the opt-in model. A Senate select committee reported on this matter back in November 1992. The minister of the day—it was, I think, a Mr Collins—accepted the recommendations of the then Senate select committee circa late 1992. We were happy to support those recommendations in government. We have reconsidered the situation in recent weeks and months. Insufficient reason has been advanced to us in opposition to change the position that the opposition has held on this issue for many years. Accordingly, we support the opt-in model. We urge the government to reconsider what we would categorise as a somewhat narrow approach to the electronic medium. As I indicated at the outset to Senator Allison, we will not be supporting the alternative opt-out model provided by the Democrats.21:21:005657Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I want to indicate what it is that concerns us about being satisfied by electronic notification. If you put something in writing, you have to sign it. If it is faxed, you still have the signature in front of you. If it is simply an email, it will have a name but it may well be that a child or someone else is simply using the name of the subscriber, the carrier not being in any position to verify who has authorised the service.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Maybe if you passed digital signatures legislation they could have.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is a possibility down the track, Senator Lundy. But we are not there at this stage. The fact remains that it is all too much a temptation for a carrier to consider that it is satisfied that it is actually the subscriber making the application because the mere name is attached to the end of the email, when in practice of course that is wide open to abuse because anyone understanding the rules of the game—and, presumably, if you ring up you are then told—could send in an email as quick as a flash. So it would take young kids about five minutes to dash off an email. It is an entirely different proposition to say that a signature effectively has to be forged. We think that is a very important distinction.21:23:005658Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The minister raises the problem of children improperly accessing services. Consequent on that, presumably, their parents being financially embarrassed is the issue, and the carrier possibly being financially embarrassed. Our response to that is that to any 12-, 14-, 16- or 18 year-old boy—and that is probably the market we are talking about here—who chooses to use email to access phone sex services in the name of his parents can equally, if he is so minded, write a letter with a forged signature. If the intent is there and the ability to communicate is there, it strikes us that the medium by which the intent is carried out becomes somewhat irrelevant.We have been speaking in code a bit, but I think we are talking about the ones I so characterised. So that is our response to your comment, Minister. If people want to engage in illegal or improper activity and they are able to do so, our experience is that if they are keen enough they will do so. To send an email off under the name of your father and for him certainly to get a bill for your activities three months later, means there is going to be, I suspect, temporary pleasure in what you are engaging in. The other matter we draw to your attention, of course, is the wording of (ea), which says:(ea) the carriage service provider is satisfied as to the identity of the relevant customer . . . That places both an obligation and an onus on the carriage service provider—to demonstrate that it is satisfied in a court of law when it tried to litigate damages for a false contract—to demonstrate, in my view, that it has established some policy guidelines within its own organisation whereby correspondence or emails once received can be checked as to the veracity of the signature on the bottom line. So that is our response there, Minister.I did not address the 12-month issue in my preliminary remarks. The government's position is for the carriers to have six months grace, if you like, to implement these changes—to get the technology and to implement the systems to manage the change. We have been approached by a large number of carriers who have advised us that, one, they do not particularly want to go down this road but that, if it is mandated by the parliament, they will. But, more importantly, they advise us that they will simply be physically unable to comply with the law as mandated within the period of six months.There are some systems problems, some technology problems and some access problems that each of the companies has identified to the opposition. They advise us that they will need up to 12 months to give effect to the bill once passed by the parliament. That being the case, if the opposition and the government are both supporting a form of the opt-in model seeking to essentially control this activity I would have thought that a period of grace of 12 months is not significantly a burden upon the government in lieu of a period of six months, particularly when a carrier has advised that they are simply unable to comply with the law. So we would also urge consideration of that amendment by the government.21:27:005658Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If one applies a strict interpretation of the opposition's amendment 39—although I assume it is intended that the carrier should satisfy itself that the email or the written notification actually comes from the subscriber—the way it is worded the only obligation on the carrier is to satisfy itself that there is such a subscriber as the person claimed to be. In other words, if they received something from M. Bishop, they do not have to satisfy themselves that M. Bishop actually sent it; they have only to satisfy themselves that there is a M. Bishop who is the subscriber. So all they would do is, presumably, look up the books and say, `Yes, M. Bishop owns that telephone line. We have an email here from M. Bishop—put two and two together.' That is not the same thing as satisfying yourself that M. Bishop, the subscriber, is actually the author of the email.21:28:005659Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Let us take another commercial relationship, by analogy, where a lot of business is done by phone. If I want to ring up Bankwest and transfer funds I hold in one account to another, and I want to do it manually over the phone for some reason and not go through the system, the operator I deal with takes my mother's maiden name and my birth date, and that is regarded as sufficient proof that it is the right Mark Bishop who is seeking to transfer funds from account A to account B. This amendment—`(ea) the carriage service provider is satisfied'—is directed down that path, that there would be a method of assessment established within the guidelines of the relevant department of the carrier whereby the opt-in method by electronic means can be satisfied.Perhaps the sales operator of the company contacts the customer or there is a form sent out in response to the email and that form has the person's mother's maiden name and birth date. There are many relatively simple and easily accessed methods that satisfy modern commercial relationships where finance is exchanged. That is the path that the opposition is driving down in respect of this, particularly again where so much commerce and business is shifting down the path of the electronic medium and sooner or later governments and bureaucracies are going to have to come to terms with the volume of work that is done by e-commerce. That is the path we are driving down, Minister. I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1401:Amendment 39, omit paragraph 158B(2)(e), substitute: (e) the relevant customer has agreed: (i) in writing; or (ii) by telephone or other electronic means; to the use of the standard telephone service to supply telephone sex services in general; and (ea) the carriage service provider is satisfied as to the identity of the relevant customer; and10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that that amendment be agreed to.21:31:005659Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I want to indicate that the Democrats will not support either the ALP amendment or the government's amendment on this. I might say that we are very disappointed at the haste with which this is being done; I think we received the government's amendments on Tuesday this week. Whilst there are a number of supportable amendments in the government's package, there are still glaring inadequacies concerning the regulation of telephone sex services and I have a number of questions that I will put to the minister before we get too much further.From the outset I want to say what the Democrats' policy position is on this. We do support the classification of material that the community quite rightly sees as being in a category that should be restricted. We do not support the untrammelled access of children to telephone sex services but we do support the freedom of access of adult-aged people to non-violent material at their own discretion. To us this is an issue of individual liberty at its most intimate, a position that the party has held for many years. The Australian Democrats simply do not support censorship of this sort.I note for the record that Senator Harradine took up his seat here in 1976 and the following year the Democrats emerged as a third force in Australian politics. I mention this in passing because, for as long as both the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine have been in this chamber, there has been a robust exchange of views on the matter of censorship and not always from opposing points of view. Almost 15 years ago, my colleague former Democrat senator Jack Evans said during the debate on the censorship of video material:I wish to make it very clear at the outset that I am averse to censorship in any form. I believe that people should have material available to them. They should be free to read, see and hear that material.I think those words are as true now as they were then. In 1992, during the debate on the Regulation of Video Material Bill 1992, my colleague and leader, Senator Lees, said:The community will no longer tolerate sexual violence particularly on television but also on film and video. . . . there is sexually explicit but non-violent material. This sort of material is the subject of a great deal of hysteria and moral judgment dressed up as argument.So, some 20 years since the arrival of the Democrats and some seven years since Senator Lees said that in this chamber, these amendments appear to be moral judgment dressed up as argument. In fact, I strongly suspect that what these amendments are designed to do is actually impose some people's ideas of morality on the populace at large. For quite a long time now people who wished to trammel the freedom of expression of citizens have used—and I emphasise that word `used'—the excuse of protecting children, frequently without much substantiation.I moved a motion on Wednesday this week to send these amendments to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, which could have explored in further detail the implications and looked at the community safety aspects of telephone sex lines, as well as at the veracity of the claims which are being made. But that motion was defeated by the coalition and by Labor so I think we need to ask the question: seeing that the progress of this legislation would not have been delayed, what exactly was it that they did not want us to know? Could it be that there in fact is not any demonstrable harm? Is it likely that there are, in fact, alternatives which could have been explored, compared to this regime? Is it possible that in fact the legislation breaches section 51 of the Constitution? These are questions that need to be raised.It has to be said that in many areas there is demonstrable harm to children that does warrant legislative intervention. The key phrase here is `demonstrable harm', not harm that is perceived, not harm that is contrived, not harm that is imagined and not harm that is imputed but harm that is actual. Even the general law principle requires that harm be demonstrated before an entitlement to compensation is permitted. That is why in the past and to this day the Democrats support a classification system that excludes violence and precludes young people from access to material that is not appropriate for their age. Not so long ago my colleague Senator Stott Despoja said:Before the minister makes another rhetorical reference to opponents of this regime as pornographers and friends of paedophiles, I want to make it clear that the Democrats are not in favour of inappropriate materials being available to minors. This legislation—and she was referring to the online services bill—is not the answer. It is a bad law and it will not be not be successful in controlling content.I think there are parallels here as well.The Democrat amendments support the freedom of expression of Australian citizens. They allow for the education of telephone account holders so that they can choose what they and their households may access. These amendments protect access choice rights to telecommunications consumers. But it is not a free for all we are proposing here. The minister would, if our amendments are successful, have the capacity to designate certain prefixes which would have a designated content profile. For example, material that could be rightly classified in an X category or an R category would have, for instance, a 1900 plus one or a 1900 plus two number attached. Consumers would be informed of their capacity on how to bar those numbers. That technology already exists. We can already STD or ISD bar our phones now. This would allow people to implement the same discretion and choice over what they access on their phones as presently exists for video or printed material and now, after yesterday's vote, the Internet.I realise that senators will not have had the Democrat amendments for long. They are, however, a variant of the government's with the exception that they preserve and do not destroy access choice rights. I think that, in the end, the true hallmark of a democracy and indeed freedom of speech that we rightly see as instrumental to democracy is not a defence of all things for all people; it is about defending the right of freedom of expression for citizens of this country even when that expression is distasteful to some.Minister, there are a number of questions which I want to put. I would be obliged, since we did not have any sort of committee process, any inquiry process, if you could answer those. First, what we found difficult in this whole approach was not knowing who is saying what about this amendment. Minister, did you have any representations from telecommunications carriers? Were there any concerns expressed to the government, particularly perhaps the monitoring of the content and associated advertising lines? Perhaps you can outline for the chamber correspondence which you have had on this subject or conversations or representations made to you from telecommunications carriers in particular.21:40:005661Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I was minding my own business when Senator Allison brought my name into it for some reason or other that escapes me. All I can say is that this is a matter that was considered by a committee of this parliament and the committee made certain recommendations in respect of these lines—0055 and 0051. One of those recommendations, for example, was barring. Though the Labor minister at the time accepted the recommendations, Telstra did not. That is a very black mark against Telstra. It is all very well for them to make money hand over fist, particularly when they just transcribed the 0055 to 1900. But under 0055 and 0051 you can have a barring system and under 1900 you cannot or they do not.Apart from all of that, you have had case after case. Never mind about Senator Allison saying, `Ask the telcos about it.' They would say, `Yes, we're making money.' Ask the people about it. Look at the letters that have come in. I have had letter after letter in regard to the running up of phone bills by young people accessing these phone lines and talking to pimps and prostitutes. They are prostitutes talking to our kids. That is what we need to overcome. One particular letter I received was about a phone bill of over $700 that was rung up in three days by a 16-year-old boy. Another one was about somebody who lost their mobile phone and the person who found it ran up $2,500 over a weekend.I think there is very little difference between the government's response and the opposition's except for the fact that the point Minister Alston made is a valid point: you really do need to have a deliberate opt-in situation in such a way that there is no possibility of there being any chance at all that that could not be absolutely verified before the access was provided. I am not going to respond to the statements made by Senator Allison because, frankly, they were non sequiturs. I am happy at some other time, when we have a bit of time, to deal with the matter. I indicate that I support the government's proposition as being one which reflects the views of those who have made a study of the situation and will effectively protect children or those who have been exposed and exploited by pimps and prostitutes.21:45:005661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have to confess that I have not had a single letter to my office on phone sex. I wonder whether those people concerned with that issue might be more likely to write to Senator Harradine than they might be to write to me. I am not sure. I am not trying to trivialise this, but I wonder how broad is the problem and whether we are taking a very blunt object to a problem when we can sort it out in a different way.The government's amendment to insert paragraphs 158A(a) and (b) requires agreement in writing and a PIN or equivalent from the customer. It is the sex service provider and the carrier who are both deemed to have engaged in unacceptable conduct if written agreement and so on is not obtained. This seems, prima facie, to be unfair. After all, the call is initiated by the customer, who supposedly knows what they are going to get. The call numbers are generally advertised in restricted magazines and with an appropriate classification system, and the advertising of the numbers could also be restricted.A further problem with clause 158G is that the onus of proof under the law is on the carrier and provider to prove that the written agreement, et cetera, was obtained. The onus should be on a prosecutor to prove an offence, not on a defendant to prove innocence. It seems that we have reversed the normal onus of proof within the law under this section.Clause 158C seems to be a little silly, and perhaps the minister might provide us with some other examples to deal with what may be a nonexistent problem. It says you cannot tie supply of goods and services to supply of telephone sex services. I am not sure when I have seen—I do not read those magazines—or heard of 10 per cent off a new Nokia if you sign up to a telephone sex shop advert. If the minister can give me some real examples, I would be happy to hear them.Subclause 158J(2) excludes therapeutic services from the definition of sex services but only if done by a doctor or psychologist. What about the vast majority of phone counselling services which are provided by trained volunteers, qualified sex therapists, gay counsellors and so on? Is it such a problem to begin with? The government's rationale for this is that children can access unsuitable material. How much of a problem is that? It may be an issue for a parent who gets hit with a big bill, and Senator Harradine talked about that. Is the issue the bill—and that obviously is an issue for parents; there are lots of things that children do that can create bills for parents, it is one of those things—or is it that the parent can take appropriate action to stop it happening again?I am not sure if it is such a serious problem as far as corrupting the morals of minors is concerned. How bad, in effect, is it if a youth wants to hear rude stuff over the phone and they get to do it? What will happen to that young person if they hear rude stuff over the phone?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—It's not rude stuff, come on. Don't belittle it. It's not rude.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator Harradine has said it is not rude!6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—It's pornographic, not rude.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator Harradine says it is not rude; it is pornographic. If a young person hears sexy language and suggestions over the phone, I wonder whether that is bad enough to infringe freedoms.What is the intention behind the amendments? At the moment it is a $150 million a year industry with 1.4 million calls a month. Most callers are spontaneous, and some may be compulsive. Any requirement for them to sign up in writing in advance could mean they would not do it, and maybe that is what the government wants. While the government explicitly says in the explanatory memorandum that these arrangements are not supposed to be for the purpose of closing down the telephone sex industry, this of course is what the industry believes will be the effect. The industry may go underground or offshore as a result of these changes—the present aboveboard nature of the industry means its phone services have clear paper trails and it pays its full share of tax.We believe there is a better way. A better approach would be to classify services and provide a simple way for people to block the use of their phone for accessing certain classifications. A note on the next phone bill saying, `If you don't want to have these services available, pick up your phone and enter these numbers,' would suffice. This can be done, probably without legislation. Such an opt-out system would provide parents with the ability to protect their children from being exposed to rude things over the phone, and probably the phone bills that go with them.An opt-in scheme would require a premeditated intent on the part of each individual and for each service they sought to access. For example, someone who wanted to try out the range of services available would have to write to each and every service provider and then wait a week or two before they received their service. Quite frankly, I am not sure that actually indicates an understanding of why people access the services.Senator Allison's motion which attempted to refer these amendments to a committee noted that the amendments might be an acquisition of property under section 51 of the Constitution. I cannot make a position of judgment considering the government's amendments have been available only in the last few days, but certainly that would have been worth considering. In the meantime, the Democrats have proposed an opt-out provision, something that would be simple to access. Certainly, for those people who were worried about their young people hearing rude things over the phone, that would be the provision. Is it that we are worried about the phone bills? There is a way of dealing with that. Is it that we are worried that young people might hear rude things? That is an issue of censorship.Here we have a situation where it seems like a whole range of people may not have been consulted. Perhaps to assist us, the minister might tell me whether the government has considered what the impact on the community may be if it is difficult to access the services that are currently used but are not necessarily provided by doctors or psychologists. As subclause 158J(2) excludes therapeutic services from the definition of sex services but only if done by a doctor or psychologist, has the government considered or consulted the vast range of phone counselling services that are provided by trained volunteers, qualified sex therapists, gay or transgender counsellors and so on?21:52:005663Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The intention of the legislation is not to interfere with the capacity of counsellors and others to provide useful public services. It is to deal with what is, by most standards, thoroughly unacceptable material with very little redeeming social merit. I am amazed at Senator Margetts's coyness on this subject. I do not know whether it derives from utter ignorance of what is actually on these lines or whether it is simply a determination to use euphemisms to somehow make it out to be pretty harmless stuff. If you want to go on and talk about rude things and naughty words, you are really sending yourself up because you are not addressing the subject matter of these services.We are not concerned about kids saying a few naughty words or things that might pass as fairly robust. We are talking about material that has much worse than a salacious intent, and I must say that any redeeming social grace escapes me. There might be those who can demonstrate it, and I would like to hear it. Usually the argument is couched in terms of, `I don't actually want to deal with the subject matter. I just believe everyone has the right to see whatever they like.' That does not address the underlying concern about the subject or the material. Senator Allison says, `That would be judgmental,' but we make judgments all the time. We outlaw murder because we do not like it. We do not say, `I'm morally neutral on that but it's a matter for you. Personally, I wouldn't do it but, if you want to, go for it.' We say no. We have a moral view on these issues and we take action accordingly.Another matter of very significant concern which Senator Harradine addressed is that, under the current regime of opt out, you are able to have people running up extraordinary phone bills in other people's names. That is not a satisfactory situation. Obviously, the commercial incentives for carriers to persist in that conduct are quite considerable, but it is not at all in the public interest that people find themselves suddenly strictly liable because their phone happened to be used for services of which they had no knowledge or approval. What does Senator Margetts say? `Better luck next time but now you know. It cost you $2,500 over the weekend. Cough up but, from now on, get on to Telstra and tell them.' Then you suddenly discover that it is Optus, and you have to go through another rigmarole.The fact is that there ought to be informed consent at both ends and that informed consent should extend to not being effectively forced to consent by bundling arrangements. So if a carrier offers you access to sporting lines, it cannot say, `We need your authorisation in writing and this will apply to a whole range of other services, including sex ser vices.' That is not a proper approach to take. There ought to be a specific addressing of the particular issue, and you cannot tie or bundle services in that way, just as you cannot in a whole range of other areas in the Trade Practices Act. Bundling may be justified in certain circumstances, I suppose, in terms of internal cross subsidies but, when it becomes an occasion of simply requiring people to consent to something they would not directly consent to, I think the anti-social nature of that is obvious.Senator Allison asked me whether we had had any representations from the carriers. Senator Harradine actually spelt out the history of this quite succinctly. The fact is that, following that 1992 inquiry, the carriers did agree to a regime that was under control. A few years ago, it was basically thrown out the window. No-one particularly noticed that the carriers were no longer adhering to their obligations, and this is in large part simply a reversion to the arrangements they had freely agreed to some years ago. So, yes, we have had discussions with carriers. I think those discussions were more in terms of refinements, because they acknowledge that there was a strong community view and nothing has changed that would have justified them unilaterally changing those arrangements. They have been more concerned about some practical elements rather than the philosophy behind the approach, which I do not think any of them argue against in public.21:58:005664Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps the minister could clarify this, because he did not quite clarify it in his response. How does the government in these amendments make the distinction between phone sex counsellors and other phone sex services? If they are not doctors or psychologists, how does the government make the distinction so that people will not have access to other kinds of phone sex counselling, whether they be gay, lesbian or other transgender counsellors or qualified sex therapists? How will the government do that?21:59:005664Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Paragraph 158J says: . . . a telephone sex service is a commercial service supplied using a standard telephone service, where: (a) the supply is by way of a voice call made using the standard telephone service; and (b) having regard to: (i) the way in which the service is advertised or promoted; and (ii) the content of the service; it would be concluded that a majority of persons who call the service are likely to do so with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification from the call.I would assume that the sorts of people Senator Margetts is talking about would not fall into that category. Presumably, they are seeking genuine counselling advice and assistance, not necessarily from therapeutic or counselling services—who are, in effect, automatically exempt. They would clearly not be caught by the requirement that the majority of persons would be using the service `with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification'. You tell me they are not, so I do not see what the problem is.22:00:005664Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am sorry, that has not answered the question. Basically, your definition suggests all those people are phoning for a particular reason that your amendment has suggested, but it does not indicate how you prevent people from being restricted in their access to services provided by non-doctors or psychologists. The minister in his definition did not indicate how people would not be prevented from accessing phone counselling services being provided by trained volunteers, qualified sex therapists and gay or transgender counsellors. In reality, they are saying that it is available for doctors and psychologists, but you have indicated that your amendments are assuming that most people are after, basically, a sex service that is within your narrow definition.22:01:005664Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I would have thought we are in heated agreement that there is the world of difference between genuine counselling and a service being provided `with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification'. Do we agree that there is the world of difference between those two propositions?If so, then the obligation is on the carrier to satisfy itself that this is a genuine counselling service. And, if it is not—and I would have thought overwhelmingly these things almost self-identify—the carrier would be required to treat it as a telephone sex service with all of the obligations imposed by the legislation. If it is not and the carrier has made reasonable inquiries and kept records of those inquiries, I cannot see how it would run foul of this law, because it would not come within the terms of 158J(1)(b).22:02:005665Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If that is so obvious, can the minister advise why it is then necessary to exempt doctors and psychologists in that way?22:02:005665Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Because therapeutic or counselling services provided by medical practitioners, on their face, are highly unlikely to be providing telephone sex services, whereas—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Touche, on their face; you have just proved my point. So why is it necessary to exempt them in law, and how are the rest of the people going to prove that they are not—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The rest of the people do not have to prove anything. If they simply say to the carrier, `This is the service we are providing; we are not a sex service,' and the carrier satisfies itself that that is so, it is not regarded as a sex service and it does not have to comply. It is pretty straightforward. Perhaps you think there is a lineball difference between `counselling' and `providing information with the sole or principal object of deriving sexual gratification'—that does not sound very much like counselling to me.I would have thought there is likely, in practice, to be the world of difference between counselling, which is probably likely to take quite a period of time, and telephone sex services, which I imagine are pretty short and sweet—particularly if they are timed local calls. So, in practice, there should not be any difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Any genuine service would have no difficulty in satisfying a carrier that it was legitimate and would, therefore, not be caught by the legislation.22:03:005665Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I find it difficult to believe that this minister is for real in his analysis of the real world.22:03:005665Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I just want to come back to the question I asked which Senator Harradine answered. I wonder whether the minister can have a go. It comes to the question that Senator Margetts has raised.It seems to me that, in the absence of the telecommunications carriers being obliged to monitor what is going on, the sex line industry would simply say to the carrier, `Well, we are doing therapy.' Unless the telecommunication carrier listens in and monitors or tests—they might have to ring up and pretend they are somebody else—how else will they know whether it is a sex call or genuine therapy?22:04:005665Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think a pretty reasonable starting test would be to look at the marketplace. People offering these services presumably will want to advertise them so that people will utilise them, and the form of words will be a pretty big give away as to the true nature of the service. If you are interested in a sex line service and there are ads to that effect, you are hardly likely to ring up a counselling service, and vice versa: if you are genuinely interested in counselling, why would you ring a sex line service? So I think there will be a high degree of self-selection.Where it comes to an obligation on carriers, it is only right and reasonable that carriers should have to make the initial judgment. It is not terribly difficult at the present time. No carrier has said to us, `We have enormous difficulty in determining genuine from purported sex counselling services.' The argument is simply whether or not it is onerous to require them to have certain obligations and what the impact of that regime might be. But I do not think anyone has seriously argued that you cannot tell the difference. Senator Margetts might not. Maybe they use naughty words and talk about rude things on counselling lines and, therefore, as far as she is concerned, there is no difference between counselling and sexual gratification. But I would have thought most carriers would be able to understand the difference quite readily.22:06:005666Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—That just does not make any sense, Minister. Are we saying here then that the telecommunications carriers do not have to monitor, are not allowed to monitor, or there is no requirement to monitor, but that they just check out the ads? If that is the case, to avoid this kind of action, why wouldn't a sex line put their first ad into the paper saying something innocuous like, `We do counselling'? Subsequent ads might turn out to be a different matter altogether; they may be sex lines.For instance, is Telstra required to comb through all of the advertising that goes on in every paper or magazine ad infinitum? There is quite a lot at stake here. As Senator Margetts has said, this is an industry which is currently worth $150 million. There is a lot at stake. Why wouldn't an organisation initially pretend to be about counselling and then go on with its real business at some later stage? Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.07 p.m.)—I do not know what later stage that is. If they are in the business of making a quid, then presumably they are in the business of making sure that people have no misapprehension about the nature of the business. If you are seriously trying to make money out of sex lines, why on earth would you get out there and offer a counselling service?The practical result will be that there is an obligation on those providing these services. They will know overwhelmingly what type of service they are providing and what type of business they are in. If they are telephone sex lines, as we understand the definition in the act, then they will have certain obligations attached to them. If somehow they pass themselves off in the way you suggest and the carrier has no reason to believe that they are not other than a genuine counselling service, and then it transpires or it is brought to the notice of the carrier that they are offering sex services without the requisite PIN, then the carrier would be expected to take action accordingly. So it is not a matter of monitoring every call; it is a matter of simply satisfying yourself that this is what it purports to be.22:08:005666Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—How does the telecommunications carrier satisfy themselves? This seems to me to be central.22:09:005666Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I take it you do not mean that literally—or their employees for that matter. Are you somehow pretending there is no difference between counselling and sex gratification services? Are you saying that people might be genuinely confused about whether it is one or the other? I cannot understand that, because this is a commercial enterprise. You keep telling me it is a $150 million industry. Cocaine is probably worth a lot more than that, so maybe we should be even more concerned to protect the cocaine industry. But the fact remains that they are out there offering a particular service. I cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to offer it surreptitiously. But if they do and that is brought to the attention of the carrier, then the carrier has an obligation to make the necessary inquiries. If it is a genuine counselling service then it will not have a problem; if it is not, then it will.22:10:005666Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, would you expect somebody to make a complaint to the telecommunications carrier; is that how it works? And then what: does the telecommunications carrier have to listen in on the conversations in order to make a judgment? It seems to me that we are dealing with a fairly enormous loophole in your legislation. All somebody has to do is to pass themselves off as something else for a short period of time and then proceed with whatever business they set up in the first place. I am just trying to get at what you expect the process to be of telecommunica tions carriers satisfying themselves that these services are not in fact those that your legislation attempts to cover.22:11:005667Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There is clearly an obligation on the carrier to be satisfied that this is the genuine article.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—How?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You seem to think there is an enormous difficulty in actually listening to a service, subscribing to it and knowing what it is. Maybe it is possible that you could listen to something and genuinely not know whether it is a counselling service or a sex line, but I would be amazed myself. But the legislation makes it clear that judgments do have to be made about whether or not this is a service:(b) having regard to:(i) the way in which the service is advertised or promoted; and(ii) the content of the service;it would be concluded that a majority of the persons who call the service are likely to do so with the sole or principal object . . .Of course it involves listening to it. You cannot make a judgment otherwise on the content of the service. Having looked at the way in which the service is advertised and promoted and having listened to the service itself, if you still have no idea whether it is counselling or otherwise then I would think that that would be an absolutely infinitesimal problem. It is certainly one that has never been raised with us, and I cannot see how it reflects the real world.22:12:005667Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Minister, will the telecommunications carriers be able to tap telephone calls; is that what you are saying?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Why would they need to tap them?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Does the legislation make provision for that and, if it does, what are the implications for the Telecommunications (Interception) Act? What are the processes involved in, say, Telstra tapping that telephone? As I understand it, there is a procedure to be gone through to get permission.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What do you mean by tapping? Do you mean listening?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Well, you said that you have to listen in.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Do you mean dialling the number?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—Order! Can we just have one speaker at a time, please. Senator Allison has the call.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—The minister just said they would need to listen in. Either they need to listen in as someone who is passing themselves off as a customer and so going through the motions—Senator Margetts interjecting—1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Which is a difficulty, as Senator Margetts points out, if they do not have a PIN signed up, because they cannot do that. It is a serious question, Minister, and I wish you would address it. Either we are inviting telecommunications carriers to tap telephones, we are inviting them to pass themselves off as customers for the purposes of trapping organisations in this way, or we are not. It seems to me there is a major problem with the premise that telecommunications carriers can monitor without doing some of these steps. It is also fairly unreasonable, I would have thought.22:14:005667Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I must say you puzzle me greatly. You seem to think that a carrier is incapable of dialling up a service or reading an advertisement in the newspaper and that, by definition, if a carrier listens to what is played on a publicly available line—one that is promoted—somehow it is eavesdropping but it is merely accessing the service if a citizen does it. It is just a nonsense proposition.Interception of private lines between two persons is a different proposition. The carrier does not need to listen in to an actual conversation to ascertain whether the type of service provided is counselling or otherwise. It simply dials up the service and it may not need to say who it is. It might be a recorded service. If it is a recorded service, then the material will speak for itself.I think it is a pretty fail-safe test to merely look at the way in which the thing is advertised or promoted in the first place. You will not get much business passing yourself off as a counselling service if you are really in the sex lines business. There is no question here of interception or tapping or some sort of Big Brother intervention; it is simply a matter of an operator or a service provider having a number and making a service available, and the carrier, like any other member of the public, being able to access it and assess the quality of the material and the way in which it is promoted. You can do that as well as the carrier. Are you tapping it because you ring up that number? Of course you are not. Why should the carrier be regarded as intercepting by simply ringing up that number?22:16:005668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to follow on from Senator Allison's line of questioning. I first of all point out to the minister that it is not an unreal scenario we are talking about. Depending on the state you live in, we have all experienced situations where sex services are advertised as massage services. I do not know whether people get a massage necessarily if they go to those services, but the reality is that escort services or massage services are often euphemisms for prostitutes or brothels. Basically it has been the case for a long time in Australia that the industry itself found ways of getting around restrictions in advertising and other legal problems. The situation may well be that people will understand very quickly what those euphemisms mean, so I think the minister is being very naive to suggest that the euphemisms will not develop very quickly.Perhaps the minister can tell us whether there will be a line on the budget. I know we have had various lines of inquiry in Senate estimates as to whether the use of government credit cards is acceptable for phoning phone sex lines. I wonder whether telcos will have acceptable budget lines, and whether we will find when we get to Senate estimates that Telstra, for instance, will have a budget line—if we ever see this—that says that there is a budget set aside for operators from Telstra to phone in and sample each of the potential or suspected phone sex services. How long will they have to be on the line, if it is a reactive line, to find out what kind of service it really is—whether it is one that is not acceptable or is acceptable? Considering the number of potential services that operate in Australia, what kind of budget would you be looking at to regularly phone through, put a PIN through and pay for a telephone service to find out whether it is in fact a phone sex line that ought to be restricted?22:18:005668Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As a starting point, Telstra does not get any appropriation from the budget. Maybe you want to argue that it should, but it does not, so we will not have that problem. Carriers who are offering these services are doing so for commercial gain; they therefore have inbuilt capacity to afford to test the services that are available. It is just another cost of doing business; there is nothing particularly unusual about that. If you want to argue that they should have pure profit from every cent they earn, the fact is that they have overheads and other costs of doing business and this just happens to be one of them.I cannot for a moment see that that is a particularly onerous obligation to place on them. I would have thought that overwhelmingly those offering sex line services would want to describe them as that, and that there would be very little passing off in the way that you described. Taking your analogy of massage parlours—we reverted to calling them brothels in Victoria some years ago—if there is a law against brothels but not against a genuine massage parlour and you expect the law to be enforced, you simply go around and inspect the services available. It is not a very difficult matter.If you are telling me that you cannot tell the difference between massage and prostitution, then I suppose you have a problem, but in most instances the police who visit these places do not have any doubt at all about what is going on. So you do not have to take the advertisement at face value; you go and test the content—you inspect the goods. And that is what will happen here. It will happen at minimum cost to the carriers. They will still have the opportunity to derive very significant profits, but at least everyone will know what they are getting. I think we will have no difficulty at all in distinguishing between genuine counselling services and other fly-by-night operators.22:20:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask the minister what sort of advice he has had from the Office of Film and Literature Classification over this legislation.22:21:005669Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think we have had any advice. I am not quite sure what the relevance is. We have not had any advice from the AFL either. I do not see that the OFLC have seen any need to volunteer information to us, and we have not seen any need to seek it from them.22:21:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The reason I raised that, Minister, is that if this had been able to have been dealt with in a few more days than two or three, we might have asked that question of them in the committee stage. But they have not offered up any advice, and you have not invited it? Nobody has commented?22:21:005669Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Not to my knowledge. I just point out in passing that the detail of these amendments has been on the web since last Monday week.22:21:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The minister did not answer my question. I wonder whether he would.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I did.22:22:005669Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I think this discussion is probably coming to an end—as fascinating as it has been—and I would like to put on the record the position of the opposition. The discussion has essentially been on the difference between the opt-in model and the opt-out model—the model supported by the Democrats and the Greens (WA). The opposition understands that we will divide on this when it comes to a vote. The opposition would like to put on the record that we support our opt-in model, with the amendments that we discussed earlier. We will not press our amendments to a division if it comes to that, but we do wish to place on the record the strength of our views concerning our amendments.22:22:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask the minister: how long does he expect it to take to implement this legislation?22:22:005669Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Are you asking how much longer we are going to sit for?22:23:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question was: how long will this take to implement? Could the minister indicate the readiness of the telecommunications carriers to implement this legislation.22:23:005669Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—They were operating satisfactorily under protocols for some years until something triggered the break-out—I forget what it was—and it then got bogged down in ACIF for two or three years. There should not be any difficulty in them getting back to where they were some years ago. I do not think it would take more than a matter of weeks. I do not know that we have even had representations along the lines that somehow there needs to be a significant breathing space. We are giving them six months under clause 158N. I would have thought that was more than adequate.22:24:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Does Optus, for instance, have the technology to go ahead immediately? Was that indicated to you in any correspondence?22:24:005669Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I just said that they have got six months under the law.22:24:005669Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—This seems to me to be an important line of questioning. It is my understanding that Telstra will take at least a year to restrict access to adult phone lines through an opt-in system. When the Senate is dealing with legislation which has a time frame, I think it is its responsibility to understand whether that time frame is achievable. The fact that the Senate has not been able to question Telstra or to verify whether this is achievable is relevant to discussion in the committee stage of this bill.22:25:005670Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Telstra did raise some concerns about the time it might take, but I understand that it now accepts that it will be able to comply within the six-month requirement.22:25:005670Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Is that the case for Optus as well?22:25:005670Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am informed that Optus has not raised any complaints.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—I will put the amendment moved by the opposition.22:25:005670Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Could I just make a point of clarification. I thought—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Now you are filibustering!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I might have been in an earlier life when I sat over there, but that was very different. You remember what Senator Bob Collins used to say—that anything goes in opposition. I know you are carrying on the grand tradition. I thought these were our amendments that we are discussing—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You want to get on with it? Let's get on with it then. I thought it was our amendments—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The amendment is the one moved by Senator Bishop to the government amendment. I put the amendment moved by Senator Bishop.22:26:005670Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I am sorry, but could I just ask one other question. I actually have quite a lot of questions, but clearly the Senate is not of a mind to allow me to ask them. This one is important. In the legislation, who provides the PINs? What is the mechanism and the process?22:27:005670Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Once the service provider is satisfied as to the identity of the subscriber, that service provider will issue a PIN which can be utilised thereafter.22:27:005670Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Are any privacy protections in place for that process?22:27:005670Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know. You are not really suggesting what the privacy concerns might be. Clearly, if you are required to prove your identity, that is obviously a gross breach of your right to remain silent, but you are seeking the service in the first place, so I would have thought it was a legitimate two-way obligation. There is no basis at all for thinking that carriers would want to disclose the identity of subscribers.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Unless there was a big buck in it—they would for a quid.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—This is an industry that you strongly support. I thought you would have been telling me that they have been very responsible over a number of years. Certainly, they have been making decent money now for 10 or 15 years without those sorts of problems arising. It would not be in their interest to do it because they would immediately frighten off half the horses. There should not be any privacy concerns.22:28:005670Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to get a few things straight. What I have been dealing with and arguing about in the questions I have asked and the position I have taken is the idiocy and the unworkability of the proposals. If that sounds familiar, it probably sounds a lot like online services as well. We are talking about a situation which is probably ludicrous in its actual workings and which may easily be gotten around by some, but it may make it very difficult for some people who have legitimate reasons for wanting to use those services.We are being asked as a Senate to make some sort of judgment on what you call fly-by-night operators. You call one industry an unacceptable fly-by-night operator. Let us just say that there are people who have services for couples who use explicit terminology. They may make a lot of money from those services for people who would otherwise have trouble—those who use explicit language or sell those services as a counselling service. People who are counsellors make money as well. That is the line of business that many people in the real world are in.Progress reported.Adjournment567110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.567122:30:005671Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I want to make some comments tonight on the WoolStock legislation which was passed through the Senate today as non-controversial legislation. There was little time for the debate yesterday or today, mainly because all the hard work had been done outside the chamber, consulting with the people who had a constituent interest in the legislation. One amendment concerning the appointment of a trustee for non-identified shareholders was proposed by the government and accepted by the opposition and the Democrats. It was vital that the legislation was passed today, because the existing arrangements for Wool International expire on 1 July.This is legislation for the future. The past history of what led us into the present disaster for wool is of little importance now. The time for bone pointing has passed, and the lesson is not to repeat the mistakes but to get on and effectively manage a valuable asset which comprises the remainder of the stockpile. The aim of WoolStock is to maximise the value of stockpile wool and to do so in a way that is in the best interests of growers and gives them effective control of their future.In October 1998 we announced our intention to privatise Wool International and to return ownership and control of the wool stockpile to the unit holders. The main outcome of the privatisation process is the conversion of Wool International from a statutory corporation into a company incorporated under the Corporations Law and the imposition of all of the Corporations Law on that new commercialised company. The new company will be known, as all growers know, as WoolStock Australia Ltd, and is expected to be established on 1 July 1999, replacing the statutory corporation, Wool International.WoolStock's principal activities will be limited by its constitution to selling the stockpile—currently equivalent to 1.055 million bales of greasy wool—repaying the debt at around $230 million and returning any surplus to shareholders. WoolStock is not authorised to initiate alternative new business ventures. WoolStock's activities have been narrowly defined in order to ensure that it does not enter into new or riskier ventures that may erode its value for shareholders.As part of the privatisation process, growers will receive one share in WoolStock for every unit they currently own in Wool International. The shares and units will be stapled together such that both shares and units must be sold together. The shares will be allotted to growers on 1 July and will place ownership and control of WoolStock and the wool stockpile in their hands. Some unit holders have used some or all of their units as security for loans. Any charges given over those units prior to 1 July will automatically attach to the same number of stapled shares. After 1 July growers will still be able to use their shares and units as security when borrowing money.In addition to existing rights of shareholders, shareholders in WoolStock will receive new rights similar to those of shareholders in a public company. These include the right to be paid any dividends which may be declared by the company from time to time and the right to attend general meetings of the company to propose resolutions and to vote at those meetings, including in the election of directors or on changes to the company's constitution. WoolStock has been structured to minimise the taxation obligations, and growers as shareholders will be very pleased with the result of the negotiations that have taken place, because the issue of shares in WoolStock will not impose a capital gains tax liability on the unit holders. WoolStock will be exempted from corporate taxation in relation to the disposal of the wool stockpile and income derived from investing the proceeds of the stockpile sales. Unit holders who are original wool taxpayers will continue to receive the unit distributions as primary producer income—a very big advantage to those primary producers.The ability of some unit holders to claim small business rollover relief when selling their units will not be affected by the privatisation, provided that the unit holder's circumstances have not otherwise changed—another big advantage for primary producers. The small business capital gains tax rollover relief will not apply to WoolStock shares and the disposal of shares in WoolStock will be subject to the capital gains tax regime, which again can be of assistance to primary producers. Importantly, the privatisation process has been structured to protect the interests—as far as has been humanly possible—of the growers who are the unit holders.WoolStock's activities will be limited to selling the stockpile and returning any surplus to stakeholders. WoolStock is not authorised to initiate alternative new business ventures. However, if shareholders want WoolStock to expand its objects they can vote to change the constitution under both the constitution of WoolStock and the Corporations Law itself. WoolStock's constitution allocates $3 million to investigate the possibility of establishing a wool marketing or processing company. Should any new venture prove viable, it will be financed separately. WoolStock will not commit or contribute financial resources to any new venture. However, WoolStock shareholders would be given the opportunity to subscribe to shares in any new venture, subject to the issue of a prospectus, as is normally the case in new venture capital.For WoolStock the most important advantage to flow from privatisation is the commer cial flexibility to respond quickly to changes in market conditions. At this stage, WoolStock plans to commence sales from the stockpile immediately following the privatisation on 1 July, but I would suggest that those sales will be extremely modest and that the Commonwealth guarantee of the existing debt will continue for some time.The board of WoolStock will seek to capitalise on the opportunities associated with the added flexibility which flows from privatisation. For instance, in the event of a wool price spike the board will not be constrained by a legislated selling program. Instead it will be able to evaluate this opportunity and respond in a way which maximises shareholder value.WoolStock can only alter its objects and the restrictions on it by passing a special resolution at a meeting of shareholders. That requires a 75 per cent approval of a resolution and that is only after a postal ballot in which shareholders holding at least 50 per cent of all votes agree to a proposal. The restrictions on WoolStock changing its principal activities are very considerable indeed. It is very unlikely that it will happen. It provides the flexibility to look at alternative ventures that WoolStock might be involved in, but there is no way that WoolStock is going to be a company that is going to go off and risk its shareholders' money without showing cause and an appropriate appreciation of the risks involved.The end of this very long process in the way that Wool International has operated since 1993 is that WoolStock has been broadly accepted by all the principal stakeholders. As I said, the legislation was debated today and yesterday and it was non-controversial in the main. The Labor Party have some problems with it—some is misguided and inappropriate—but at the end of this debate we will have the appointment of a responsible board, half of which has already been appointed; we have a board with powers to act only within the constitution of WoolStock and the Corporations Law in the best interests of shareholders; we have shareholders' rights that are clearly set out and enhanced by both the constitution and the Corporations Law; there is no requirement to fire sale the stockpile; and we have taxation arrangements that are as advantageous as is possible for growers. We can move on from here.567322:40:005673Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise tonight to talk about a matter that involves both my electorate of the Australian Capital Territory and my federal shadow portfolio responsibility for sport. In December last year the ACT Liberal government decided on a full redevelopment of Canberra's Bruce Stadium so that Canberra could host Olympic soccer fixtures. At the time, Chief Minister Kate Carnell had projected that Bruce would hold 40,000 people and the agreement with SOCOG was based on this estimate. ACT Labor leader, Mr Andrew Whitecross, pointed out the fallacy of this estimation based on figures available after the Atlanta Games detailing soccer attendances for fixtures held outside Atlanta. Nevertheless, the redevelopment of Bruce proceeded on the basis of Mrs Carnell's optimistic estimates of the number of people who would attend Olympic soccer here in Canberra.Now we find that the financial situation regarding the redevelopment of Canberra's Bruce Stadium has been something of a movable feast. For starters, the redeveloped Bruce Stadium will only hold 25,000 people—15,000 fewer than the Carnell government originally estimated when they were determining the financial returns.As my colleagues in the ACT Legislative Assembly found out during their estimates hearings, nobody seems to be able to work out just how much money is being spent and whether the ACT Liberal government has been transparent and up-front in this matter. When the ACT government decided to upgrade Bruce Stadium, the cabinet submission estimated that it would cost $27.3 million, of which $12.3 million would be funded from the government's capital works program. The remaining $15 million would be forthcoming from the private sector. Thus, the total cost ACT taxpayers would have to wear would be no more than $12.3 million. However, it seems that this amount was part of the Liberal's movable feast of financial disclosure. The $27 million soon blew out to $30 million. The question is: how much of this money will ACT taxpayers wear?The central issue is whether Kate Carnell has breached the Financial Management Act by spending $16 million that had not been approved through the budget process. The Auditor-General apparently wrote to the Chief Minister stating, `strong anticipation by the government that the additional private sector funding would become available during the year, however this did not eventuate.' In short, because the ACT government received approval to spend only $12.5 million and the private sector part of the plan did not eventuate, the government went ahead with spending extra money without proper approval.In her defence Mrs Carnell has argued that it does not matter how much public money you spend within a financial year, just so long as the books balance on 30 June. This is a very cynical excuse. To make the books balance she borrowed the balance of the money on 30 June and paid it back on 1 July. Consequently, Mrs Carnell appears to have spent money on Bruce Stadium that was not properly appropriated, and justified this by alleging that private sector funding will be forthcoming and therefore this money will be paid back. The ACT Liberal government does not seem to understand that you cannot just borrow money to facilitate your agenda without the proper approval of and due process in the Legislative Assembly.During the ACT estimates hearings it was also revealed that the costs associated with the Bruce Stadium redevelopment seemed to be fluctuating on a daily basis. I understand that the Under Treasurer, Mr Lilley, originally stated that the cost of each seat at Bruce would be $1,600. Given that there are 25,000 seats at Bruce this would make the cost of the redevelopment around $40 million—a far cry from the $27 million we were told it would cost. However, literally overnight Mr Lilley revised his seat costing to $1,310 each, which—surprise, surprise—equates to $32 million, just $5 million over budget. It is therefore extremely difficult to ascertain the exact projections of revenue for Bruce and even the exact costs associated with the redevelopment. The ACT government agreed to the terms and conditions of hosting Olympic soccer in a cavalier manner without revealing the true social and economic costs to ACT taxpayers.Furthermore, the conditions for hosting Olympic events in the ACT may impact on our local rugby league and rugby union competitions. At least four enclosed grounds are required to facilitate Olympic training preparations, and the grounds currently under consideration will need improvements before they meet the agreed standards. This may well result in a loss of facilities for the various football codes which will be close to semifinals in August next year. The ACT government has not satisfactorily dealt with this issue and there remains a great deal of anxiety about the potential loss of playing fields and the disruptions this will cause.I welcome Canberra's role in the Sydney Olympics, and I fully support, and always have, the staging of soccer fixtures at Bruce Stadium. However, I am very concerned about the manner in which the ACT government has proceeded and their lack of transparency in revealing the true economic and social costs to the community. Mrs Carnell cannot continue to hide behind commercial-in-confidence rhetoric. She needs to detail the full costs associated with Bruce Stadium to the taxpayers of the ACT. This story is not yet over and I watch with interest as the Chief Minister is finally called to account.One final comment: it is such a shame when this initiative is so positive and has so much to offer to a city like Canberra, to this place. It gave us a much coveted role to play in the Olympics. At the time Canberra secured these soccer rounds, it was seen as a great bonus. This great bonus has now been tainted by the actions of the ACT Liberal government in their treatment of this issue. I think it will reflect badly on them in the lead-up to the Olympics, and it will take a little of the gloss off what was a very positive and exciting initiative for Canberra.567422:47:005674Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to talk briefly about the issue of Greenwich University. I am pleased that Senator Carr is in the chamber tonight to hear this because this is about his outrageous behaviour in defaming staff at Greenwich University. I have a longstanding interest in education, particularly university education.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—Are they real staff?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Yes, exactly. I will point out why they are real staff, and you will eat your words when I have finished this statement and the information provided by the university and its staff.Members of the Senate employment, education and training committee have had to suffer in silence for many hours, including from 11 o'clock to 4 o'clock in the afternoon at one estimates hearing when Senator Carr devoted those five hours of Public Service time—I do not know how much that would have cost—to defaming people and defaming this particular university.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Did he apologise?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—No, he did not apologise. But after I finish this he should.Senator Carr interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I am glad you think so. The staff of Greenwich University do not think so, and they have called for an intergovernmental inquiry between the United States and Australia over Senator Carr's behaviour in this matter.Senator Carr interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Ten steps to courage, Senator. Go outside and say it. You have not got the guts, have you? You have not got the guts to go outside and say it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, your remarks are to be directed to the chair and not across the chamber.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Through you, Madam President, Senator Carr is treating this place like a coward's castle to defame people who cannot defend themselves and to defame the reputation of this institution. Let us have a look at what he has done and the reaction to what he has done. I refer to page 35 of yesterday's Australian . The headline reads: `Island faculty outraged'. The article says:Greenwich registrar Sian Quantrill wants statements from Greenwich lecturers to be read into Hansard to "have the untruths and misstatements about them . . . put right".The counter-statements from seven Greenwich lecturers contained in the letters are responding to an attack by Labor Senator Kim Carr. It claims the comments, made by Carr under parliamentary privilege, are defamatory.On March 22—and, I believe, again on 7 May—Senator Carr referred to the distance-based institution on Norfolk Island as a "ridiculous, laughable and shonky pack of shysters, posing as a university".Senator Carr questioned the authenticity of some of the university's courses, and the qualifications and associations of some of its lecturers.He described the institution as a "denizen of murky underworld degree mills that cluster on the other side of the Pacific".The letter to the Prime Minister says that a number of Greenwich people named by Senator Carr are US citizens who will have been "angered by the abuse of the parliamentary process"."Two of them have suggested that the matter be referred to the US State Department in Washington so that it may be referred at an inter-governmental level with the Australian Government," Ms Quantrill's letter says.It adds, members of the faculty "who have been named have asked that steps be taken by the Commonwealth Government to have the untruths and misstatements about them put right by the Commonwealth Government in the Parliament [principally the Senate]."That is exactly what I want to do tonight. I seek leave to incorporate the seven letters that I have been presented with by the faculty of that university: Dr Jeanrenaud, Dr Lindgren, Dr Mertz, Dr Miller, Dr Patricolo, Dr Shealy and Dr Walston.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Madam President, on the question of leave, I seek leave to make a statement in regard to this matter. Madam President, these documents have not been shown to the opposition.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The question at this stage is: is leave granted for the letters to be incorporated?AW5CARRSenator Carr—When the documents are shown to the opposition with time for us to read them leave will be considered at that point. Leave is not granted.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I am not surprised Senator Carr does not grant leave. He does not want this information on the public record. He stands in this place and defames people. They want to respond to Senator Carr but he will not let them. He is not even gracious enough to allow this material to be put on the public record. I will read two of the letters into the public record and that will show my point. The first letter is from Ms Quantrill, the registrar:Dear Prime Minister,As you are aware some members of the Labour Party have sought to attack Greenwich University in recent months. They have descended to personally defaming members of our faculty by name, using parliamentary privilege.A number of those named, are American Citizens who have been angered by the abuse of the parliamentary process. Two of them have suggested that the matter be referred to the US State Department in Washington, so that it may be referred at an inter-governmental level with the Australian Government.We have sought to defuse the issue as much as possible by pointing out that the attacks have come from the Opposition, and that this is normal procedure in the Australian context. However, faculty who have been named have asked that steps be taken by the Commonwealth Government to have the untruths and misstatements about them be put right by the Commonwealth Government in the Parliament (principally the Senate).I enclose copies of statements from seven of our faculty members, namely:Dr. JeanrenaudDr. LindgrenDr. L. MertzDr. D. MillerDr. PatricoloDr. ShealyDr. R. WalstonWe would ask that these be read to the Senate and incorporated into Hansard.Sincerely, S. QuantrillRegistrar These are the ones that I have tried to table, which Senator Carr has tried to block. Let me read one from Dr Rick Walston, BA, MRel, PhD, DMin.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Which university?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—From reputable universities, Senator Carr. We will get to that point, and then we hope you will get up and apologise. I now read from the letter:Regarding comments made by Senator Carr with regard to Greenwich University in general and Dr. Rick Walston in particular.It is with deep disappointment that I note that the good Senator does not investigate into matters worthy of being presented to the Australian Senate. I note with sadness that when he speaks of me, his only "evidence" is what he "has been told by another," as he indicates. Did Senator Carr speak to me personally? Did he communicate with me by phone, mail, fax, or email? Did he investigate the level of academic quality that our school requires? No, no, and no.Without so much as checking to see if those things said were true, he stood before your great body and told you that I was the president of a degree mill. I would think that such a charge should be made only after careful investigation and the accumulation of corroborating evidence. Senator Carr did no such investigation nor gained any such "evidence"; a charge that I shall prove later in this letter.Presently, I shall point out one of our more recent doctoral graduates for evidence to the contrary: James R. White earned his Master of Theology and Doctor of Theology degrees from our school. Dr. White is the author of The King James Only Controversy (which was his Masters thesis for his master's degree with our school) and The Forgotten Trinity (which was his doctoral dissertation with our school). Dr. White's academic works with our school have been published by Bethany Publishing House—a national publisher, and his books (including at least four more than the two mentioned) are being used in other, accredited, schools as text books. Now I ask you, is it common for diploma mills to require such academic work that rises to the top of the publishing world and becomes text books for other, fully accredited schools? Obviously not.. . . . . . . . .Let me now shift to our faculty and mention that the idea that our school is a diploma mill would come as quite a shock to our faculty member R. Brinley Jones , the President of the National Library of Wales, and Chairman of the Cathedrals and Churches Commission of Wales, and who holds his D.Phil. from Oxford University, U.K. His honorary degrees include the D.Litt. from Potchefstroom University, South Africa. And, it would also come as a shock to these other distinguished faculty members:Samuel G. Andreasen, Ed.D. from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.Rodney J. Crowell, D.Min. from Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX.Larry V. Crutchfield, Ph.D. from Drew University, Madison, NJ.Carl Judson Davis, Ph.D . from the University of Sheffield U.K.Richard Brian Davis, Ph.D. from the University of Toronto.Oliver Rice, Ph.D, from Trinity Theological College, Bristol, England.Joel Berry Robertson, Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, CA.I could go on but, let me ask, is it normal for degree mills to employ such fine academicians as faculty? Again, obviously not.. . . . . . . . .My last point is to prove my charge above that "Senator Carr did no such investigation nor gained any such `evidence.'"How can I possibly prove that Mr. Carr simply repeated information "told" to him and that he did not investigate the charges himself?And he goes on. I am nearly out of time, but he talks about the fact that they have changed the name of their seminary. Senator Carr, you referred to the old name, and your information is at least one year out of date, which shows you cannot even look up a web site to find this out. And, finally:In conclusion, I cannot vouch for any other person that Mr. Carr so demonizes in his speech; however, if he did comparable "research" on the others he mentioned, then I would certainly caution anyone from simply accepting his charges at face value.Thank you for this opportunity to respond.Sincerely,Rick Walston, B.A., M.Rel., Ph.D., D.MinStep outside, Senator Carr! Coward's castle! Step outside and say it, and get sued! (Time expired)567622:57:005676Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The comments made by Senator Tierney I am sure will be seen in the full light of the investigation that the Commonwealth govern ment itself has now launched into this degree mill. Might I say that some weeks ago, as Senator Tierney pointed out, I did draw the Senate's attention to the strange science of ornithology that does seem to exist in regard to Greenwich University. I, of course, was able to point out specifically the case of a number of galahs that seem to be so firmly entrenched in this particular episode. I was, of course, referring specifically to the galahs that have been creating havoc in Australia's most valuable higher education sector. The people I referred to in this context in particular were the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, and the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald.The issue involved the establishment of this virtual university known as `Greenwich' by an act of parliament of Norfolk Island. Of course, we all understand that galahs are the vandals of the bird world. As anyone who has kept one as a pet will know, their beaks are rapacious, they are instruments of destruction. So if two galahs make trouble, I ask you to think about just what sort of a problem a whole flock of them is making for Australia's higher education sector system.Of course, this is the situation we now face. I say that the question of the operations of a number of universities are worthy of serious consideration by the Senate. I have drawn attention to the activities of the University of Asia, St Clements University and the Australasian Institute. I say that cyberspace is fast filling up with entities which are trying to pass themselves off as Australian universities. They are trying to hitch a free ride on our international reputation for excellence in education which has made our export industry in education worth some $3 billion a year.This is an industry that is now to be compared with the size of tourism, wheat and mining as one of our great export earners. Now, of course, we have seen that these somewhat highbrow hitchhikers, these wanna-be Australian universities and institutes, have managed to get their own hold on what they regard as their version of `The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Cyberspace Galaxy'. What does it say? It makes it very simple: that Australia leaves itself wide open, in a virtual sense, to crooks and shysters who want to come in here and freeload on our high quality education system. `Go to Australia,' the guidebook advises. `Get yourself an Australian post office box or a room at the back of a grog shop and set yourself up as a university and hoodwink unsuspecting students from all over the world.'O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Madam President, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. This is absolutely disgraceful because I have set out clearly these people's excellent qualifications and this is not a degree mill. That has been stated emphatically and has been proved emphatically. Senator Carr should desist from going on with this defamatory rubbish.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, there is no requirement for relevance in an adjournment debate.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The whole exercise here is that you only have to advertise on the Internet that you are able to establish in Australia and the unfortunate students will be tricked into thinking that there is a real dinky-di Australian university. You can hitch a ride with a touring Australian education exhibition and trick the students in Islamabad or Timbuktu.We have seen today in the papers about one of these shysters, the Business Institute of Victoria—so-called. This thing is not registered as an education provider for overseas students under CRICOS, the official listing maintained by DETYA. Nonetheless, it took part in an Australian education exhibition in Pakistan and snared a number of students, who subsequently paid their $15,000 each and went off to study at this outfit's premises in Vanuatu—a back room in an obscure office block in downtown Port Vila. Yes, I said Port Vila—on another Pacific Island; not Norfolk Island this time. The advantage of Vanuatu is that the strict Australian student visa provisions do not apply in Vanuatu and, of course, an unaccredited outfit like this one can operate with impunity.Of course, the other set of restrictions, the provisions applying to international education providers here in Australia—under the ESOS Act—are also lacking in Vanuatu. These are the financial safeguards that require the student fees to be placed in a trust. The prospect of that is that it is aimed to protect students when a provider goes under. So these poor Pakistanis, Vietnamese and the other students that participate in this so-called Australian university college at Vanuatu, the Business Institute of Victoria, have all lost their money. As for their tuition, we do not expect anything other than for them to be left stranded on the beach by the actions of people like this. What does this do to our fine international reputation? No good whatsoever.We have seen here that Australian companies have set themselves up to take advantage of the relaxed immigration laws of a Pacific island state to exploit, in turn, Australia's international reputation in educational export. This is what happens in the case of operating out of Vanuatu, beyond our ironclad laws and safeguards designed to protect student interests. In the case of Greenwich University, that so-called laughable entity was legally established in the Australian territory of Norfolk Island with the clear and obvious purpose of passing itself off as a real Australian university. It has blatantly used the naivety on matters of higher education of the nine-member Norfolk Island Assembly.What did Norfolk Island get out of it? Let me quote from a recent press statement that was made. They said they got `increased publicity'—terrific. They got tourism: `half a dozen local jobs and postage'—what an achievement! This is how their legislators have put it. They have increased publicity all right, and they have become the laughing-stock of cyberspace. And don't doubt this: there are more Norfolk Islands and there are more Greenwiches around—many more. What I am particularly concerned about in the case of Greenwich is the naivety of the nine yeomen of Norfolk, who have allowed themselves to be placed in a situation as a result of the lackadaisical irresponsibility of the galahs that have become responsible for the administration and protection of Australia's international educational reputation. Of course, they are the Australian ministers for education and for territories, not to mention their various legions of bureaucrats who are supposed to undertake the role on a day-to-day basis.It transpires that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, has admitted that the department of territories did in fact consult DEETYA before advising their own ministers that there was no impediment to him signing off on the Greenwich University bill of Norfolk Island. This minister thought, as he said at estimates just last month, this was `not a major issue'. He says it was a matter of concern only to the people of Norfolk Island. But it seems that the contact between the two departments and in turn the principals of Greenwich University occurred at a junior level, according to DEETYA's own answers to questions asked of them through estimates.Of course, I would ask: when did the secretary to the department express concern about these matters? Was it only after the Senate estimates hearing? Was it only after questions were raised by the opposition? I would ask: why was such a cavalier attitude taken to the unusual request from an obscure American institution about seeking to set up a university on Norfolk Island of all places? It was apparent that the alarm bells did not ring until the opposition raised these concerns through the estimates.Madam President, I am sure you would be aware that the Sir Humphrey Appleby or the Yes, Minister tapes are being used as training vehicles for various public servants right throughout this great Commonwealth. What I find quite amazing is that we have now seen the whole full circle where public servants are coming along to the estimates committee to actually find out what is going on—because that is exactly what has occurred in this case. We have seen that the savage budget cuts meted out to DEETYA have rendered the department a shadow of its former self. This is why the department was only able to learn about these events through the opposition.It is a very simple matter. How did the department find out about Greenwich's attempts to get into Australia through New Zealand? Through the estimates. What about the shoddy record of Greenwich University in the United States, how it has been chased from state to state throughout the United States and had its registration—for its various attempts to set up shonky programs—removed by the governments in the United States? How did that come out? Through the estimates.What about the iffy qualifications of some of its staff, in particular the so-called Duke of Branagh or whatever he styles himself on as the great inheritor of the Russian imperial throne? What about the process that occurs where departmental officers appear to come to estimates to establish these simple questions. What about the worldwide resources of DEETYA? Why is it that the resources of one Labor senator seem to be able to establish these facts when the department cannot? I put a very simple proposition that this departmental blunder is probably one of the most monumental we have seen in many years. It is certainly bigger than the Wright family. It is certainly bigger than what we have seen with the ship of fools. We are entitled to ask ourselves about the ineptitude and the neglect of government ministers.I say this to Senator Tierney: let people write to the Prime Minister and seek an apology because there will only be one apology—that will be the apology from the Australian Prime Minister about the incompetence, the neglect and the abysmal failure of government ministers in this government which has laid open the defences of Australia's higher education institutions to a group of people about whom the Californian government indicated that `Diploma mills that manufacture degrees based on the ability to write a cheque rather than the ability to master curriculum will no longer make the grade'.567923:07:005679Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—In the very brief moments available, I will seek to read into the record another one of the letters that Senator Carr refused to give permission to have incorporated in the Hansard because they expose him for the sort of merchant that he is in trying to peddle defamatory material in parliament. Then, when it is found that it is not correct, he does not have the decency to make amends for it.AW5CARRSenator Carr—When are you going to apologise?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you have had an opportunity.Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—The people of Australia listening in tonight have just witnessed once again the disgraceful behaviour that Senator Carr goes on with in this Senate. This was also apparent at a committee hearing involving a Mr Vivian Buck during consideration of the voluntary student unionism legislation, where numerous defamatory statements were made. He has never proven any of those allegations, he did not provide any information in support, he has not retracted the allegations, nor has he reported it to the Privileges Committee. You see, Senator, when I make a mistake I have the decency to retract; you don't. Claudine Jeanrenaud states:I read the minutes from Australia's senate meeting on March 22nd 1999, and I have a few reactions. First, I must thank Senator Carr for indulging so brilliantly in insults, for this frees me to be rather direct myself. Though I don't think I'll be needing words such as "shysters" to be effective.By snickering at the concepts of Alchemy or analysis of Fairytale, Senator Carr is advertising his ignorance of a whole field of psychology . . .Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.Documents56795679The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Air Services Act—Direction under section 16—Instrument No. M37/99.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 6 of 1999.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan— Amendments Nos 23 and 26. Approvals of Amendments Nos 23 and 26. Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act—Telecommunications (Amount of Annual Charge) Determination 1999.5680The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1999, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 30 December 1998—Statements of compliance—Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio—National Museum of Australia, National Gallery of Australia, National Science and Technology Centre and National Library of Australia.Answers to Questions on Notice5681The following answers to questions were circulated:5681(Question No. 446)4465681Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many freedom of information requests were received by the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.(2) How many of these requests were: (a) granted partially or in full; and (b) refused.(3) In how many instances was a fee waiver: (a) sought; and (b) granted, either partially or in full.5681Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:`Fee waiver' was taken to mean waiver of charges rather than application fees.(1) 39 valid requests were received in the 1996-1997 financial year. 29 valid requests were received in the 1997-1998 financial year.(2) In 1996-1997, (a) 19 of the requests for access were granted partially or in full, and (b) nine requests were refused. 11 requests lapsed or were withdrawn. In 1997-1998, (a) 16 requests were granted partially or in full, and (b) one request was refused. 11 requests lapsed or were withdrawn. In one case no relevant documents were found.(3) In 1996-1997 a fee waiver was (a) sought 14 times, and (b) granted partially or in full six times.In 1997-1998 a fee waiver was (a) sought 14 times, and (b) granted partially or in full six times.5681(Question No. 498)4985681Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 has the department received since 3 March 1996.5681Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The department has received of 151 valid requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 between 3 March 1996 and 8 March 1999.5681(Question No. 499)4995681Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) How many requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 were received in each month since March 1996.(2) How many of the requests received in each of those months: (a) have been finalised; or (b) have not been finalised.5681Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:`Finalised' was taken to include requests that lapsed or had been withdrawn as well as requests involving decisions that are no longer subject to appeal.(1) Valid requests the department received each month between March 1996 and February 1999 are tabulated below.(2) (a) Valid requests the department has received in each month between March 1996 and February 1999 and finalised are noted below.1996final1997final1998final1999finalJanuaryn/an/a 4 4 2 222Februaryn/an/a 6 6 4 486March 1 1 8 8 7 6April 6 61313 3 3May 3 3 7 7 1 1June 6 6 2 2 6 6July 2 2 7 7 2 2August 0 0 2 2 4 4September 5 5 4 4 2 2October3 3 3 2 4 4November4 4 2 2 1 1December6 61010 1 1(b) Four requests are not yet finalised—one from October 1997, one from March 1998, and two from February 1999.5682(Question No. 500)5005682Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many of those requests related to documents held by: (a) the department; (b) another department; (c) a minister's office; or (d) a combination of these.5682Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Of the requests received by the department since 3 March 1996, (a) 121 requests related to documents held by the department; (b) five requests related to documents held by another department; (c) no requests related to documents held by a minister's office; or (d) 17 requests related to documents held by a combination of these. In seven cases no relevant documents were found.5682(Question No. 501)5015682Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many of those requests have resulted in: (a) documents being released in full; (b) documents being released in part; and (c) access being denied.(2) Of the cases where exemptions have been claimed for all or part of documents, how many claims have been made against each of the statutory exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 1982.5682Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Of the requests received by the department since 3 March 1996 (a) 42 requests resulted in documents being released in full; (b) 30 requests resulted in documents being released in part; (c) 18 requests resulted in access being denied. The balance of the requests that have been finalised either lapsed or were withdrawn before a decision on access was made.(2) The following number of claims for exemption were made against each of the statutory exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 1982:s21 2 s24 2 s34 5s36 11 s37 15 s39 3s40 23 s41 14 s42 4s43 9 s45 55683(Question No. 502)5025683Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with at initial `decision-maker' stage by the department since 3 March 1996, how many requests: (a) had full charges waived; (b) had charges partially waived; (c) sought a charges waiver which was not granted; or (d) did not seek a charges waiver.(2) Of the cases under (b) or (c) in (1), how many applicants had sought waiver of fees on: (a) financial hardship grounds; (b) public interest grounds; or (c) both grounds.(3) Of the cases under (b) or (c) in (1), how many applicants: (a) sought internal review in regard to the decision on charges; (b) were fully successful in that review; (c) were partially successful in that review; or (d) were not successful in that review.(4) Of the cases under (c) or (d) in (3), how many applicants have received access to the information and/or documents which were the subject of the application.5683Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:We have taken `initial decision' to mean a decision taken on imposition of a charge or, in the event that no charge is imposed, the decision taken on access to the relevant documents.(1)(a) In 65 requests no charge was imposed; (b) three requests had fees partially waived; (c) a fee waiver was refused in relation to 20 requests; (d) fee waiver was not sought in relation to 59 requests.(2) In six requests waiver was sought on financial hardship grounds; (b) in 32 requests waiver was sought on public interest grounds; and (c) in three cases applicants sought waiver of fees on both grounds.(3)(a) internal review was sought on the issue of charges in four cases; (b) no applicants were fully successful in that review; (c) three applicants were partially successful; (d) one was not successful.(4) Of the cases in question 3 above, where applicants had sought internal review on charges and were partially successful or unsuccessful, one applicant received access to the information and/or documents which were the subject of the application. Two requests lapsed and the other one has not yet been finalised.5683(Question No. 503)5035683Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been referred the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of departmental decisions.(2) Of these cases referred to the AAT, how many related to decisions regarding; (a) access; (b) deletions; (c) charges; or (d) other (can details be provided)(3) What were the results in each of these cases.5683Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Three cases have been referred to the AAT for review of departmental decisions since 3 March 1996.(2) (a) Two cases related to decisions regarding access; (b) no cases related to decisions regarding deletions; (c) one case related to a decision regarding charges; (d) no cases related to any other decision.(3) In one case the applicant was not successful, one case has not yet been decided and in one case the application was discontinued. 5684(Question No. 504)5045684Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; and (b) relevant experience, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the (a) formal qualifications; and (b) relevant experience; of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 since 3 March 1996.5684Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:A large number of decision-makers were involved in these cases, many of whom are no longer employed by the Department. A full and complete answer to this question would require an inordinate level of departmental resources. The delegation to make decisions on release of documents and on internal reviews for the period covered by the question was restricted to members of the Senior Executive Service and, for part of the period, the Director of the Legal and Accountability Section.5684(Question No. 506)5065684Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) How many external staff development courses has the department conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of the external staff development courses the department has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended the external staff development courses the department has conducted since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and of this number how many: (a) were specifically focusing on the subject of Freedom of Information Act 1982 decisions; and (b) how many dealt with this issue amongst others. (4) Of the courses relevant to (3) which agencies or consultants provided that training(5) What was the total cost of the courses in (4).5684Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that the training and development needs of staff are identified and addressed within local work areas in line with the Department's business needs. Records of training and development attended by staff are the responsibility of the local work areas and are not maintained centrally by the Department. They would be both time-consuming and difficult to obtain.5684(Question No. 507)5075684Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been referred, or been the subject of a request for advice, to the following agencies regarding the Government's practice on disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act: (a) the Prime Minister or his office; (b) the Minister for Finance and Administration, or his office; (c) the Special Minister of State, or his office; (d) the Attorney-General, or his office; (e) any other minister, or his/her office; (f) the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; (g) the Attorney-General's Department; or (h) any other department or agency.5684Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:`Referral' in this instance was taken as a direct formal request for advice.(1) Freedom of information requests have been referred to the following agencies for advice: (a)—(f) none; (g) four; and (h) 13. 5685(Question No. 508)5085685Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many cases have been dealt with at the initial `decision-making' stage within: (a) 0-30 days; (b) 30-45 days; (c) 45-60 days; (d) 60-75 days; (e) 75-90 days; and (f) over 90 days.(2) What is the average time taken at the initial `decision-making' stage to deal with the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996.5685Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) At an initial decision making stage (a) 117 requests were dealt with in 0-30 days; (b) 10 requests were dealt with in 31-45 days; (c) two requests were dealt with in 46-60 days; (d) six requests were dealt with in 61-75 days; (e) four requests were dealt with in 76-90 days; (f) nine requests were dealt with in over 90 days. In the remaining three cases the request was withdrawn before an initial decision was made.(2) The average time taken to deal with requests at the initial decision-making stage is 27 days.5685(Question No. 509)5095685Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996 and on which internal review has been sought, how many cases have been dealt with at the internal review stage within: (a) 0-30 days; (b) 30-45 days; (c) 45-60 days; (d) 0-75 days; (e) 75-90 days; and (f) over 90 days.(2) What is the average time taken at the internal review stage to deal with the requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996.5685Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) At the internal review stage, where it was sought, (a) seven cases were dealt with within 0-30 days; (b) two cases were dealt with in 31-45 days, (c) no cases were dealt with in 46-60 days, (d) no cases were dealt with in 61-75 days, (e) no cases were dealt with in 76-90 days, and (f) one was dealt with in over 90 days (this case took 92 days).(2) The average time taken to deal with requests at the internal review stage is 32.5 days.5685(Question No. 510)5105685Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many requests have been made by: (a) a member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a senator.(2) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding access were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(3) Of the cases relevant to (a) and (b) in (1), how many requests regarding charges were: (a) partially successful; or (b) refused.(4) Of the cases relevant in (2) and (3), how many of the department's written reasons for decision used, as grounds for refusal under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, a reference to Members of Parliament having access to parliamentary processes to seek information from departments.(5) Is the department aware of any provision contained in legislation or departmental guidelines or practice where the applicant's employment provision can be, or has been, used as grounds for refusing access to documents and/or refusing to waive charges, other than that set out in (4).5685Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Two requests were made by a member of the House of Representatives, (b) seven requests were made by senators.(2) (a) Two requests regarding access were partially successful, and (b) in no request was access refused. Two requests regarding access were fully successful.(3) (a) No requests regarding charges were partially successful, and (b) three requests regarding charges were not successful. Three requests regarding charges were fully successful.(4) In two cases a member's access to parliamentary processes was referred to as grounds for refusal in the written reasons for a decision.(5) No.5686(Question No. 511)5115686Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 March 1999:(1) With reference to requests for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 dealt with by the department since 3 March 1996, how many cases have resulted in: (a) third party consultation; or (b) reverse freedom of information action.5686Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Of the requests for information made since 3 March 1996 (a) 58 requests resulted in third party consultation; and (b) five requests resulted in reverse freedom of information action.5686(Question No. 561)5615686Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provided this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total department expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.5686Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Exact expenditure to move to accrual accounting for 97-98 is difficult to determine as the costs were, in the main, in-house staff costs. It should be noted that moving to accrual accounting has been taken to mean operating and reporting on an accrual basis, including establishing accrual budgets and policies.Minor modifications to the existing Financial Management Information System (FMIS) were undertaken. This was partly because the current FMIS is an accrual system that was previously modified to operate in a cash environment, and a new FMIS (QSP) has been selected and is due to be operational 1 July 1998, on a full accrual basis.In addition, one of the largest parts of the Department, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service has been operating on an accrual basis since becoming a Trust Account in 1993. As has a smaller Trust Account operation the National Residue Survey.(2) For the reasons outlined above the Department forecast a very minor amount in this area, in 1997-98.(3) (a) For 1997-98 no firms or individuals were engaged.The main reasons for external assistance have been due to:* system modifications, as explained above; and that* additional resources were required to establish an accrual budget and associated work in 98-99. This was because there are only a limited number of staff with appropriate skills and experience and a number were already undertaking other related activities eg. the FMIS implementation, external financial reporting etc. (b) In the second situation when additional resources were required, a contractor from Acumen Alliance was used on a part-time basis to work on the accrual estimates project. In addition, an individual contractor working for WallRyan Investments has been engaged on a full-time medium term basis.(4) (a) The total number of days that the contractor from Acumen Alliance was engaged to provide advice or services was 23, the individual contractor has been working with the Department from the beginning of November 1998 until present.(b) The cost per day of the Acumen Alliance was $1,200, the individual contractor is $640.(c) The total cost of Acumen Alliance' services was $27,600, the total cost for the individual contractor in relation to accrual accounting issues is expected to be approximately $51,200.(5) (a) As mentioned above approximately $78,800 is expected to be expended on contractors for the accrual budget exercise.(b) $63,400 has been spent to date in 98-99.(6) The estimated total expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 98-99 financial year is again difficult to determine, apart from the above costs the only expenditure was associated with internal staff costs. There will also be an exercise to update the Department's accrual reporting/accounting policies during this financial year, which will cost approximately $25,000. Negotiations with firms are currently under way.To illustrate the scale of expenditure for in-house staff costs, for the 98-99 year approximately $90,000 has been expended in direct salary cost in creating the first accrual budget and work associated with establishing Opening Accrual Balances in the FMIS. There are few full-time resources able to be devoted to such reforms. However, to ensure that these reforms are covered off, other mechanisms of obtaining resources have been utilised ie. part-time team members or temporary teams, from within other areas of the Department who quickly return to their original area when the project is finished.Question on Noice—Accrual AccountingDirectMths% of time$Accrual BudgetSOGB68092840%$18,157.87ASO6494954100%$16,498.33ASO6494954100%$16,498.33SystemsSOGC61139850%$20,379.67ASO6494954100%$16,498.33$88,032.53WallRyan12800470%$35,840.00 Nov-Feb12800340%$15,360.00 Mar-June$51,200.00Days spentAcumen120023$27,600.00$78,800.00 Exp to spend$63,440.00 To date5688(Question No. 686)6865688Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 22 April 1999:Following the Regional Forest Agreement, what is the total Tasmanian forest area:(a) protected in dedicated reserves;(b) in informal reserves; and(c) in formal reserves.5688Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative forest reserve system that incorporates formal (including dedicated) reserves and informal reserves. These figures are based on the provisional RFA reserve boundaries. The total CAR reserve system on public land in Tasmania covers 2 700 000 hectares of which 1 246 000 hectares is forest, with the balance of the area made up of non-forest areas (eg. Buttongrass plains). Noting that the boundaries of reserves are still being finalised the following approximate areas are provided.Total area of forest in dedicated reserves—0.630 million hectaresTotal area of forest in informal reserves—0.155 million hectaresTotal area of forest in formal reserves—1.091 million hectaresThese figures were prepared from the jointly owned RFA data sets.5688(Question No. 687)6875688Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the food `aid' package being provided to the Tangerang region of Indonesia by the Victorian Department of State Development:(1) What indicators demonstrate the existence of a `current food crisis' in the Tangerang region?(2) What poverty and hunger indicators demonstrate the need for baby food aid in the region?(3) What safeguards have been implemented to ensure the food will not be used as a breastmilk substitute by food recipients?(4) What steps have been taken to ensure compliance with the World Health Organization (WHO) resolutions regarding free supplies of baby food? (5) What steps have been taken to ensure that women receiving this food have access to the resources necessary for its safe preparation, particularly clean water?(6) What are the health, social and economic implications of introducing a wheat-based baby food to a predominantly rice-eating culture?(7) How does this program reflect the findings and recommendations of the (a) WHO Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes; (b) 1998 International Review of Food Aid (c) United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund Declaration on the Rights of the Child; and (e) Beijing Women's Conference resolutions?(8) What is the duration and cost of the program?(9) What community groups were consulted during the development of the program?5688Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The food aid package provided to the Tangerang region of West Java is an initiative of the Government of Victoria under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indonesian Ministry of Food and Horticulture. Apart from some general consultations in Jakarta during the preliminary stages of the project design, the project has been implemented without reference to the Federal Government aid agency, AusAID.(1) The economic crisis has had a detrimental impact on the affordability of food throughout Indonesia. This has been felt particularly acutely by the poorer sections of the community. However, we have no specific knowledge of the community profile or the current food security situation in the Tangerang region.(2) Infants are particularly vulnerable to the effects of nutritional deficiencies resulting from prolonged malnutrition. We have no knowledge of the current poverty and hunger indicators in the Tangerang region but understand that the program will target approximately 40,000 infants in the 6-12 month age group.(3) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(4) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(5) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(6) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(7) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(8) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.(9) The query should be directed to the Government of Victoria.